BEYOND MISINFORMATION

What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7 BEYOND MISINFORMATION What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7

© 2015 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc.

Review Committee Sarah Chaplin, Architect and Urban Development Consultant, Former Head of School of Architecture and Landscape, Kingston University, London Dr. Mohibullah Durrani, Professor of Engineering and Physics, Montgomery College, Maryland Richard Gage, AIA, Founder and CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Dr. Robert Korol, Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Ontario Dr. Graeme MacQueen, Retired Professor of Religious Studies and Peace Studies, McMaster University, Ontario Robert McCoy, Architect Dr. Oswald Rendon-Herrero, P.E., Professor Emeritus of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Mississippi State University

Author Ted Walter, Director of Strategy and Development, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Technical Editor Chris Sarns

Contributing Writers Craig McKee Chris Sarns Andrew Steele

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth 2342 Shattuck Avenue Suite 189 Berkeley, CA 94704 Introduction...... 2

1. Formulating a Hypothesis...... 4

High-Rise Building Fires and Failures...... 4 The Features of Controlled Demolition vs. Fire-Induced Failure...... 7 What Is the Most Likely Hypothesis?...... 9

2. The Official Investigations...... 10

The FEMA Building Performance Study...... 10 The NIST Investigation...... 13 NIST’s Probable Collapse Sequences for WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7...... 14

3. The Destruction of WTC 1 and WTC 2...... 16

Sudden Onset...... 17 Constant Acceleration through the Path of Greatest Resistance...... 18 Pulverization, Dismemberment, and Explosive Ejection of Materials...... 20 Demolition Squibs...... 21 Eyewitness Accounts of Explosions...... 22

4. The Destruction of WTC 7...... 24

Sudden and Symmetrical Free Fall...... 24 Structural Dismemberment into a Compact Debris Pile...... 27 Eyewitness Accounts of Explosions...... 27 Foreknowledge of WTC 7’s Destruction...... 28

5. High-Temperature Thermitic Reactions...... 30

Molten Metal Pouring out of WTC 2...... 31 Molten Metal in the Debris...... 32 Sulfidated Steel in WTC .7...... 33 Iron Spherules and Other Particles in the WTC Dust...... 34 Nano-thermite in the WTC Dust...... 35 NIST’s Refusal to Test for Explosives or Thermite Residues...... 36

6. NIST’s Evidence for Fire-Induced Failure...... 38

Hypothetical Blast Scenarios and Thermite Use...... 39 Estimates of Fireproofing Dislodgement...... 40 How Hot Did the Steel Become?...... 41 NIST’s Computer Modeling...... 42

Appendix A: Eyewitness Accounts of Explosions...... 44 Appendix B: Accounts Indicating Foreknowledge of WTC 7’s Destruction...... 46 Endnotes...... 47 References...... 48 Introduction

What caused the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 on September 11, 2001? More than a decade later, this question continues to be discussed by many people around the world.

According to the official explanation, the World Trade Center Twin Towers (WTC 1 and WTC 2) collapsed What Does Science Say? due to damage from airplane impacts and ensuing The purpose of this booklet is to provide a careful fires, while World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), a examination of these competing explanations — 47-story skyscraper also in the World Trade Center which we will refer to as “hypotheses” from this complex, collapsed completely and symmetrically point forward — and a comprehensive overview of into its own footprint due to office fires ignited by the available evidence, so that readers can begin debris from the earlier collapse of WTC 1. Though to evaluate which of the two hypotheses is more few people have studied it closely, a majority of the consistent with the evidence. Because this booklet public, including most architects, engineers, and only skims the surface of this subject, readers are 1 scientists, accept the official explanation. strongly encouraged to study the official reports and the papers referenced herein before reaching their Much of the public, however, including a consider- own conclusions. able number of architects, engineers, and scien- 2 3 tists, do not accept the official explanation. Among The position taken in the following chapters is that those who reject it, the most common explanation very little of the evidence can be explained by the is that WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 were destroyed hypothesis of fire-induced failure and that all of it in a procedure known as “controlled demolition,” can be explained by the hypothesis of controlled whereby carefully placed explosives or other de- demolition. Nonetheless, this booklet will make the vices are detonated to bring down a structure in a best attempt to describe how the authors of the of- desired manner. September 11, 2001, aside, every ficial reports have explained the evidence according total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise building to their hypothesis. In many cases, however, we will in history has been caused by controlled demolition. find that the authors of the official reports denied or ignored the available evidence. According to this second explanation, the demo- lition of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 would need to In the end, the goal is to move our collective under- have been prepared before September 11, 2001, by standing of the World Trade Center’s destruction demolition experts who had unrestricted access to beyond misinformation so that we as a society may the buildings. This explanation also implies that the arrive at an accurate account of one of the most demolition was planned in coordination with the important events in our recent history. other attacks of that day. Most importantly, if the goal were to make it appear that the airplanes had caused the destruction of the buildings, it could not be left to chance that airplanes would successfully crash into WTC 1 and WTC 2. This explanation, ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ARCHITECTS therefore, contradicts the official account of 9/11. 2 3 BEYOND MISINFORMATION WTC 1and WTC 2are center. Theformer footprintofWTC 7isatthebottom left. The World Trade Center siteinNewYork City. Theformerfootprints of

1 Formulating

Before and after photos of World Trade a Hypothesis Center Building 7.

This chapter provides a starting point from which to examine the competing hypotheses of fire-induced failure and controlled demolition. First, it will review the history of high-rise building fires and failures. Then it will examine the features that distinguish fire-induced failure and controlled demolition.

One principle of the scientific method is especially us establish what should be considered, or should relevant in the early stage of an investigation when have been considered, the most likely hypothesis for data is being gathered and a hypothesis is being the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. formulated. “Unprecedented causes should not, without good reasons, be posited to explain familiar occurrences,” observes David Ray Griffin, a profes- High-Rise Building Fires sor emeritus of Philosophy of Religion and Theology who has written extensively about the philosophy and Failures of science and about the events of September 11, The history of steel-framed high-rise buildings 2001. “[W]e properly assume, unless there is ex- spans about 100 years. Setting aside the events of traordinary evidence to the contrary, that each in- September 11, 2001, every total collapse of a steel- stance of a familiar occurrence was produced by the framed high-rise building during that period of same causal factors that brought about the previous time has been caused by controlled demolition. In instances.”1 comparison, fires have never caused the total col- With that principle in mind, we will review the his- lapse of a steel-framed high-rise building, though ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ARCHITECTS tory of high-rise building fires and failures to help high-rise building fires occur frequently. 4 Modern steel-framed high-rises generally endure and WTC 2 as fire-induced failures. In the chapters fires without being structurally compromised be- ahead, we will examine whether the structural cause they have fire protection to prevent the steel damage and reported dislodging of fireproofing are from heating to the point where it loses a significant sufficient reasons to differentiate WTC 1 and WTC amount of its strength. This is usually in the form 2 from other steel-framed high-rise buildings that of gypsum board (drywall), concrete, or sprayed-on have experienced fires. insulation. The results of NIST’s survey were as follows: To illustrate the performance of steel-framed high- rise buildings throughout history, let us first exam- ine the instances in which fires have caused the total Partial Collapses or partial collapse of high-rise buildings. Of the 22 fire-induced collapses, 15 were partial collapses, with five of those occurring in buildings In 2002, the National Institute of Standards and that were comparable to WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 Technology (NIST) conducted an international in terms of size or construction (over 20 stories or historical survey of fires in multi-story buildings steel-framed or both). The five are: (defined as four or more stories) of all kinds that ■■ One New York Plaza, a 50-story steel-framed building that experienced local connection failures resulting in filler beams on the 33rd and 34th floors dropping onto their supporting girders;

■■ Alexis Nihon Plaza, a 15-story steel-framed building in Montreal, Canada, that experi- enced a partial collapse of its 11th floor;

■■ WTC 5, a nine-story steel-framed building in the WTC complex that experienced partial collapses of four floors and two bays on September 11, 2001;

■■ The Jackson Street Apartments, a 21-story WTC 5 on September 11, 2001. reinforced concrete building in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, that experienced the partial resulted in total or partial collapse of a floor/ceiling assembly; and collapse.2 From news data- ■■ bases, published literature, CESP 2, a 21-story reinforced concrete and direct inquires with 23 building in Sao Paulo, Brazil, that experi- organizations, the survey enced a substantial partial collapse of its identified 22 fire-induced central core. collapses between 1970 and The remaining 10 partial collapses occurred in 2002. WTC 5 on September 21, 2001. buildings with eight or fewer stories and construct- Originally, the survey included WTC 1, WTC 2, and ed of materials including concrete, brick, wood, or WTC 7. However, it was revised in 2008 to remove masonry with cast iron. None were steel-framed. WTC 1 and WTC 2, because, according to NIST, their destruction did not result solely from fire, but from a combination of structural damage, dislodged fire- Total Collapses proofing, and fire caused by the airplane impacts. Of the 22 fire-induced collapses, seven of them However, in this chapter, because fire was report- (including WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7) were total col- BEYOND MISINFORMATION BEYOND edly the proximate cause, we will discuss WTC 1 lapses. WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 stand out from the 5 other four buildings, which ranged from four stories collapse. In 2013, the National Fire Protection As- to nine stories and were made of concrete, wood, or sociation (NFPA) published the most recent edition unknown materials. of its periodic report titled High-Rise Building Fires. According to the report, which defines high-rise In summary, the survey identified four other doc- buildings as having seven stories or more, there umented instances in which fires caused the total were an estimated 15,400 high-rise building fires in collapse of a multi-story building. None were steel- the U.S. annually from 2007 to 2011. Fifty percent framed and the tallest was nine stories. Fifteen of those occurred in buildings typically considered buildings suffered partial fire-induced collapse, but high-rise buildings (that is, with multiple separate only five of them occurred in buildings that were floors such as apartments, hotels, facilities that over 20 stories and/or steel-framed. The survey care for the sick, and offices). The incidence in that concluded, “A fire-induced collapse in a multi-sto- five-year stretch is similar to the number of fires ry building can be classified as a low-frequency, observed in earlier time periods. high-consequence event.” The NFPA report notes that, by most measures, the Other notable fire-induced collapses have occurred risks of fire and of associated losses are lower in since 2002. In 2005, the 29-story Windsor Tower in high-rise buildings than in other buildings of the Madrid, Spain, constructed of steel exterior columns same property use. The difference, says the report, and reinforced concrete core columns, burned for can be attributed to the much greater use of fire almost 24 hours and suffered a partial collapse, in protection systems and features in high-rise build- ings as compared to shorter buildings.

In terms of buildings that are more comparable to WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, the report estimates that 1,610 fires occur each year in buildings with 13 or more stories. Since the report does not categorize fires by size, severity, or duration, it is difficult to tell how many of these fires are comparable to the fires in WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

One method of comparison, though, is to identify high-rise building fires that resulted in significant fire damage and property loss. Using those criteria, NIST’s 2002 historical survey (updated in 2008), referenced above, identified seven major high-rise building fires that did not result in total or partial collapse. Those included: The Windsor Tower in Madrid, 2005. The Windsor Tower after having burned for almost 24 hours. ■■ One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, PA (height: 38 stories; fire duration: 19 hours) stages over several hours, of floors where the steel support columns and beams had no fire protection. ■■ Mercantile Credit Insurance Building in In 2008, the 13-story Delft University Faculty of Ar- Basingstoke, United Kingdom (height: 12 chitecture Building in the Netherlands, constructed stories; fire duration: unknown) of reinforced concrete, burned for seven hours and experienced a partial collapse of a 13-story section ■■ Broadgate Phase 8 in London, United of the building. Yet there remains no documented Kingdom (height: 14 stories; fire duration: instance of a steel-framed high-rise building suffer- 4.5 hours) ing total collapse from fire, and only a small number have experienced partial collapse. ■■ First Interstate Bank in Los Angeles, CA (height: 62 stories; fire duration: 3.5 hours) Let us now examine the incidence of high-rise ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ARCHITECTS building fires that do not cause total or partial ■■ MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas, NV (height: 6 26 stories; fire duration: 8 hours) The Features of ■■ Joelma Building in Sao Paulo, Brazil (height: Controlled Demolition 25 stories; fire duration: one hour and 40 minutes) vs. Fire-Induced Failure Let us now move from examining the occurrence ■■ Andraus Building in Sao Paolo, Brazil of collapse to the manner of collapse produced (height: 31 stories; fire duration: unknown) by controlled demolition and fire-induced failure, The NIST survey also noted two major fire test pro- respectively. Table 1 on the following page lists grams conducted at the Building Research Estab- several common features that generally distinguish lishment (BRE) Laboratories in Cardington, United controlled demolitions and fire-induced failures. Kingdom. The first series of tests, conducted on a As Table 1 illustrates, the corresponding features representative eight-story composite steel-framed of controlled demolition and fire-induced failure office building, resulted in significant fire damage are virtually the opposite of each other. Not every but did not result in collapse, even with unprotected controlled demolition exhibits all of the features of steel floors. The second series of tests conducted controlled demolition listed in Table 1, nor does ev- on a seven-story concrete building also did not re- ery fire-induced failure exhibit all of the features of sult in collapse. fire-induced failure listed in Table 1. However, there Given the high frequency of fires in steel-framed is very little crossover: When a building’s cause of high-rise buildings and the low frequency of fire-in- collapse is controlled demolition, the building ex- duced collapses, the probability when a fire occurs hibits virtually none of the features of fire-induced in a steel-framed high-rise building that it will result failure. Similarly, when a building suffers a fire-in- in a partial collapse is extremely low. The probability duced failure, it exhibits virtually none of the key that it will result in a total collapse appears to be features of controlled demolition (with the exception even lower.

Let us take WTC 7 as an example. According to the official explanation, its collapse was due solely to normal office fires and not from structural dam- age caused by debris. The probability when WTC 7 caught fire that it would totally collapse as a result of those normal office fires was exceedingly low.

Fire damage in WTC 5 (2002 NIST survey of fires that resulted in total or partial collapse).

BRE tests in Cardington, United Kingdom. Partial connection and floor failures in WTC 5 (2002 NIST survey BEYOND MISINFORMATION BEYOND of fires that resulted in total or partial collapse). 7 Table 1: The Features of Controlled Demolition versus Fire-Induced Failure

CONTROLLED DEMOLITION FIRE-INDUCED FAILURE

The collapse is total, leaving virtually no parts of the The collapse is usually partial (always partial in the case building standing. of steel-framed buildings), leaving much of the building standing.

The onset of collapse is always sudden. The onset of collapse is gradual, with visible building deformations appearing prior to the actual collapse.

The collapse lasts a matter of seconds. The collapse takes place over many minutes or hours.

The collapse typically starts at the base of the building, The collapse occurs randomly anywhere in the building. though they can be engineered as top-down also.

The building descends symmetrically through what was the Collapse is always asymmetrical. path of greatest resistance, though asymmetrical collapses are sometimes engineered on purpose.

The building typically descends to the ground at near The descent of falling portions of the building is slowed or free-fall acceleration. stopped by the lower sections of the building.

“Demolition squibs” (isolated explosive ejections) are visible Explosions only occur at the location of fires, if at all. outside the main zone of destruction.

Concrete and other materials are sometimes pulverized, Concrete and other materials are not pulverized. Most of resulting in fine dust clouds. the building’s remaining structure is left intact or in large sections.

The building’s steel structure is totally or mostly The building’s steel structure is left mostly intact, even if dismembered. heavily damaged.

of the four smaller non-steel-framed buildings ■■ The Jackson Street Apartments experi- that NIST’s 2002/2008 survey identified as having enced the partial collapse of a floor/ceiling suffered total collapse from fire). assembly.

If we look closely at the five buildings in NIST’s ■■ CESP 2 experienced a substantial partial survey that were over 20 stories or steel-framed or collapse of its central core. The degree of both, and that suffered partial fire-induced collapse, deformation prior to collapse is unknown. we find that none of them exhibited the features of Other than possibly experiencing little defor- controlled demolition in Table 1 above. mation prior to collapse, CESP 2 exhibited no other feature of controlled demolition. ■■ One New York Plaza experienced local connection failures resulting in filler beams In comparison, as we will discuss in the chapters dropping onto their supporting girders on ahead, the destruction of WTC 7 exhibited all of the two floors. features of controlled demolition listed in Table 1, while WTC 1 and WTC 2 exhibited eight out of the ■■ Alexis Nihon Plaza experienced a partial nine features listed in the table (the collapse WTC 1 collapse of its 11th floor, which was arrested and WTC 2 did not start at their bases). by the floor below it.

■■ WTC 5 experienced partial collapses of four ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ARCHITECTS floors and two bays. 8 If the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 were caused by fire, this would make them the first steel- framed high-rise buildings in history to suffer total fire-induced collapse (combined with structural damage from the airplane impacts in the case of WTC 1 and WTC 2). They would also be the first fire-induced collapses to exhibit nearly all of the features of controlled demolition and none of the features of fire-induced collapse. Edward Munyak, a fire protection engineer, puts it this way: “Even one progressive global collapse would have been extraordinary. But to have three occur in one day was just beyond comprehension.” Debris from the demolition of the Grand Palace Hotel/Claiborne Towers building, New Orleans. Let us revisit the principle introduced at the begin- ning of this chapter:

“Unprecedented causes should not, without good reasons, be posited to explain familiar occurrences…. [W]e properly assume, unless there is extraordinary evidence to the contrary, that each instance of a familiar occurrence was produced by the same causal factors that brought about the previous instances.”

Indeed, we can properly assume, based on the above observations, that the most likely hypothesis for the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 is that it was caused by controlled demolition. Only if there Debris from the demolition of an unidentified building. is extraordinary evidence to the contrary should an unprecedented cause be posited.

What Is the Most Likely In the chapters ahead, we will examine whether that Hypothesis? extraordinary evidence to the contrary exists — or not. n We now have two main observations to help us es- tablish the most likely hypothesis for the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. First, the probability of fire causing the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise building is exceedingly low. Such an event has never occurred prior to or since September 11, 2001. On the other hand, every total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise building in history has been caused by controlled demolition. Second, fire-in- duced failures exhibit virtually none of the features of controlled demolition. Yet, as could be seen on the day of September 11, 2001, the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 exhibited nearly all of the features of controlled demolition and none of the features of fire-induced failure. BEYOND MISINFORMATION BEYOND

9 2 The Official Investigations

This chapter provides a brief account of the investigations conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) with a focus on how their hypotheses were developed over time. Toward the end are summaries of NIST’s final “probable collapse sequences,” which are the sequences of events that NIST claims led to the total collapse of the buildings. Whether the evidence supports the scenarios put forth by NIST will be discussed in the following chapters.

In the last chapter, we established that the most With that principle in mind, we will now examine likely hypothesis for the destruction of WTC 1, WTC whether investigators started with or ever consid- 2, and WTC 7 was that it was caused by controlled ered the most likely hypothesis. demolition. Let us now consider a second principle of the scientific method that is relevant in the early stage of an investigation. David Ray Griffin describes The FEMA Building it as follows: “When there is a most likely explana- Performance Study tion for some phenomenon, the investigation should begin with the hypothesis that this possible expla- “‘It appeared to me that charges had been placed in nation is indeed the correct one…. Doing otherwise the building,’ said Mr. Hamburger, chief structural would suggest that [the investigators’] work is being engineer for ABS Consulting in Oakland, Calif. Upon

ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ARCHITECTS determined by some extra-scientific motive, rather learning that no bombs had been detonated, ‘I was than the simple desire to discover the truth.”1 very surprised.’” 10 his initial hypothesis.

The likely answer is that between September 11 and the time that he was interviewed, the government and the media had put forth an account of the day’s events that was incompatible with his original assessment that the buildings had been brought down with ex- plosives. Certainly, it would seem highly unlikely that Al-Qaeda could have gained access to the buildings and rigged them to be demolished without being de- tected. Therefore, as Hamburger essentially stated, he ruled out his initial hypothesis when he “learned” to his surprise that the official account did not include explosives being used to bring down the buildings.

Ronald Hamburger was not the only expert to rule out this initial hypothesis. On September 11, Van Romero, an explosives expert at New Mexico Tech, told the Albuquerque Journal, “The collapse of the buildings was ‘too methodical’ to be the chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures…. ‘My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after Many observers initially suspected that explosives were used in the destruction of WTC 1 and WTC 2 due to the rapid and the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were explosive nature of the destruction. some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse.’” By September 21, This quote from Ronald Romero changed his opinion after “conversations COMMON Hamburger appeared in with structural engineers,” telling his local newspa- MISUNDERSTANDINGS The Wall Street Journal on per, “Certainly, the fire is what caused the building “The Towers were a raging inferno.” September 19, 2001. By to fail.” According to the NIST report: “At that time, Hamburger was any given location, the duration and one of a team of engineers Whatever causes experts like Hamburger and Rome- temperatures near 1,000°C, was ro might have initially suspected, within a week after about 15 to 20 min. The rest of the that had been assembled time, the temperatures were near by the American Society September 11 there was no longer any question that 500°C or below…. The initial jet fuel of Civil Engineers (ASCE) fires had been the ultimate reason for the buildings’ fires themselves lasted at most a few demise. Even the precise mechanisms that triggered minutes.” and that would be given authority under FEMA the collapses were agreed upon, according to engi- “The fires melted the steel.” to investigate the World neer R. Shankar Nair, who would be a contributor to Although some experts initially claimed Trade Center destruction. the FEMA investigation. “Already there is near-con- that fires had melted the steel, the sensus as to the sequence of events that led to the hypotheses put forward by FEMA and He would also be named NIST never involved the steel becoming “Chapter Leader” for the collapse of the World Trade Center,” he told the hot enough to melt. According to NIST, chapter on WTC 1 and WTC Chicago Tribune on September 19. the highest air temperatures reached were 1,000°C (1,832°F), while steel 2 in FEMA’s final report. At least that was the case for WTC 1 and WTC 2. WTC melts at about 1,500°C (2,732°F). How did Ronald Hamburg- 7’s collapse, on the other hand, investigators were at er learn that “no bombs a loss to explain. “Engineers and other experts, who had been detonated?” FEMA’s investigators were quickly came to understand how hurtling airplanes not granted access to the site until the week of and jet fuel had helped bring down the main towers, October 7. Thus, neither he nor anyone else had were for weeks still stunned by what happened to 7 conducted forensic analysis of the debris, nor had World Trade Center,” The New York Times reported they interviewed eyewitnesses. From a scientific on November 29. “We know what happened at 1 and 2, but why did 7 come down?” said William Baker, a

BEYOND MISINFORMATION BEYOND perspective, there was no basis for disconfirming member of the FEMA team. 11 With fire-induced failure as its only hypothesis, the which left behind “tall freestanding portions of the FEMA investigation proceeded for the next several exterior wall and possibly central core columns.” months with significant constraints. As New York FEMA then stated, “As the unsupported height Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton wrote: of these freestanding exterior wall elements in- creased, they buckled at the bolted column splice [T]he investigation was financed and given connections, and also collapsed. Perimeter walls its authority by [FEMA], with which [lead in- vestigator Gene] Corley’s team had a shaky of the building seem to have peeled off and fallen relationship from the start. For months after directly away from the building face, while portions September 11, the investigators…were unable of the core fell in a somewhat random manner.” to persuade FEMA to obtain basic data like FEMA also claimed that the upper sections of the detailed blueprints of the buildings that col- buildings then acted as pile drivers, causing “a wide lapsed. Bureaucratic restrictions often kept range of failures in the floors directly at and below the engineers from interviewing witnesses to the aircraft impact zone,” which progressed all the the disaster, making forensic inspections at ground zero, or getting crucial information like recorded distress calls from people trapped in the buildings. For reasons that would remain known only to FEMA, the agency refused to let the team appeal to the public for photographs and videos of the towers that could help with the investigation.2

Most detrimental to the team’s ability to conduct forensic analysis was the City’s recycling of the buildings’ steel, which continued despite requests This PBS NOVA animation attempts to illustrate the “pancake theory.” from the investigators — and outcry among the vic- tims’ families and the fire safety community — for way down to the base of the buildings. the steel to be saved.3 Although investigators were eventually granted access to the scrap yards, nearly Regarding WTC 7, FEMA reported that there was “no all of the steel, including most of the steel from the clear evidence of where or on which floor the initi- upper floors of WTC 1 and WTC 2, was destroyed ating failure occurred,” but it put forward a number before it could be inspected.4 of “potential scenarios” involving fires on various FEMA released its report, titled World Trade Center floors on the east side of the building. Noting that Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Pre- those areas contained “little if any fuel” that would liminary Observations, and Recommendations, on be required to feed fires hot enough and long-last- May 1, 2002. As implied in the title, the report did ing enough to weaken the structure, the report not attempt to provide a definitive explanation for suggested “a hypothesis based on potential rather the destruction of each building. Instead, it posited than demonstrated fact” that diesel fuel from the scenarios in general terms while recommending buildings’ emergency generators was the source further investigation to definitively determine the of fire. Like the “pancake theory,” this hypothesis exact causes. reflected common thinking at the time but was later ruled out by NIST. Toward the end of the report, FEMA’s scenario for WTC 1 and WTC 2 — which re- flected common thinking at that time but was later however, FEMA observed: ruled out by NIST — is what became known as the The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they “pancake theory.” According to this hypothesis, the caused the building to collapse remain unknown fires caused the floor trusses to lose their rigidity at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the and sag. As a result of the sagging, the column-to- truss connections failed and the floors collapsed premises contained massive potential energy, onto the floors below them. This precipitated “an the best hypothesis has only a low probability ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ARCHITECTS immediate progressive series of floor failures,” of occurrence. 12 Thus, rather than pursuing the most likely hypothe- learned it was not compatible with the official sis for WTC 7’s destruction, FEMA posited a hypoth- account. esis that it found no evidence for; that involved an unprecedented cause; and that it acknowledged ■■ Ramon Gilsanz, whose firm was awarded had “only a low probability of occurrence.” the most important contract related to WTC 7: the development of structural models and collapse hypotheses for WTC 7. Gilsanz had The NIST Investigation been the Chapter Leader of FEMA’s chapter on WTC 7. Amid a growing sense that the FEMA Building In its final plan, released in August 2002, NIST Performance Study was insufficient for the task of conducting a full-scale investigation, NIST began acknowledged that fire had never caused the total planning its own investigation in October 2001 to collapse of a high-rise building prior to September eventually succeed FEMA’s. The NIST investigation 11, 2001. Nonetheless, it pursued its hypothesis was announced on August 21, 2002, and was sched- confidently, even going so far as to declare it as fact: uled to take 24 months. “The WTC Towers and WTC 7 are the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise build- Although a new agency was assuming the task of ings where fire played a role.” investigating the World Trade Center destruction, a number of key members of the FEMA Building Per- NIST’s first progress report in December 2002 did formance Study would come to have principal roles not discuss hypotheses in any detail. In May 2003, in the NIST investigation. Some of them included: it released a second progress report, which laid out three leading hypotheses for the destruction of WTC ■■ Therese McAllister and John Gross, who 1 and WTC 2. One was FEMA’s “pancake theory” became Co-Project Leaders of the most involving the failure of floor connections. Another important part of the NIST investigation, suggested that the floor connections held strong, “Structural Fire Response and Collapse which then allowed the sagging floors to pull the ex- Analysis.” McAllister had been the editor terior columns inward until they buckled. This would of the FEMA Building become the main initiating mechanism in NIST’s Performance Study and probable collapse sequence (see Table 2). The third COMMON the Chapter Leader of hypothesis posited direct fire-induced column fail- MISUNDERSTANDINGS the report’s introduction. ure. The May 2003 progress report, however, did not Gross had been a con- “WTC 7 collapsed because of the diesel explore hypotheses for the destruction of WTC 7. fuel fires.” 5 tributing author to the Although this was a leading hypothesis introduction. In June 2004, NIST released a third, much more ex- for several years, FEMA and NIST tensive progress report containing interim findings found no evidence to support it and ■■ Ronald Hamburger, and a working hypothesis for the destruction of WTC NIST eventually ruled it out, stating, “Diesel fuel fires did not play a role in whose firm was awarded 1 and WTC 2 — and this time WTC 7. Although the the collapse of WTC 7.” the most important working hypothesis for WTC 1 and WTC 2 described contract related to WTC “WTC 7 collapsed because of a massive, the overall sequence of events from airplane im- extremely hot fire. It was a raging inferno.” 6 1 and WTC 2: a study of pact to collapse initiation in relatively clear steps, NIST concluded that the fires in WTC the thermal-structural NIST did not settle on an initiating mechanism or 7 were not unusual or extreme. In response of the buildings on a location in either building where it might have its final report it stated: “The fires to the fires. Hamburger had occurred. In regards to WTC 7, NIST suggested in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings been the Chapter Leader that an initial local failure somewhere below Floor where automatic sprinklers did not of FEMA’s chapter on WTC 13, caused by fire and/or structural damage, trig- function or were not present.” The thermal expansion of beams that 1 and WTC 2. As discussed gered a column failure and subsequent vertical initiated the collapse occurred “at above, Hamburger initially progression of failures up to the east penthouse. temperatures hundreds of degrees thought that “charges had The resulting damage, NIST hypothesized, set off a below those typically considered in design practice for establishing been placed in the build- horizontal progression of failures across the lower structural fire resistance ratings.” ing” but apparently ruled floors, resulting in disproportionate collapse of the BEYOND MISINFORMATION BEYOND out this hypothesis when he entire building. 13 NIST’s working hypothesis for the destruction of In its April 2005 progress report, NIST addressed WTC 7 was further elaborated in a Popular Mechan- the subject of the controlled demolition hypothesis ics article from March 2005, which said: “NIST re- for the first time — but only in relation to WTC 7: searchers now support the working hypothesis that “NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was far more compromised by debris than the WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled FEMA report indicated.... NIST investigators believe demolition.” NIST did not describe what methods it a combination of intense used to search for evidence of controlled demolition. COMMON fire and severe structural Whether it conducted an adequate search for such MISUNDERSTANDINGS damage contributed to the evidence will be discussed in later chapters. collapse.” “WTC 7 was severely damaged by debris Then, in September 2005, at a three-day technical from WTC 1; it wasn’t just the fires that In April 2005, NIST an- conference where NIST released its final report on made it collapse.” 7 nounced that its technical WTC 1 and WTC 2 (see Table 2 for a summary of NIST’s Although NIST considered this hypothesis, it eventually ruled it out, work was nearly finished final probable collapse sequence), it announced that stating, “Other than initiating the and that a draft report on its report on WTC 7 would be further postponed, with fires in WTC 7, the damage from the WTC 1 and WTC 2 would the technical work being completed in January 2006, debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7.” be released for public the draft report for public comment scheduled for comment in June 2005, fol- May 2006, and the final report finished in June 2006. lowed by the final report in September 2005. NIST also announced for the first But NIST ended up significantly extending that time- time that its report on WTC 7 would be released as line. A report that in June 2005 was set for release a supplement to the other report, with a draft report by the end of that year would end up being released due in October 2005 and the final report slated for almost three years later. In a March 2006 New York December 2005. This schedule for the WTC 7 report Magazine interview, NIST lead investigator Dr. Shy- was repeated at a public briefing on June 23, 2005. am Sunder provided some possible insight into why the report was delayed so long. When asked about

Table 2: Summary of NIST’s Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 1 and WTC 2

STEP 1: Structural Damage from Airplane towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined Impact effects of aircraft impact and the subsequent multi-floor fires... if the insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only The impact of the airplane severed 35 exterior columns minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.” and six core columns in WTC 1. An additional two exterior columns and three core columns were heavily damaged. STEP 4: Sagging of Thermally Weakened Floors In WTC 2, the impact of the airplane severed 33 exterior columns and 10 core columns. An additional exterior Pulled Exterior Columns Inward column and core column were heavily damaged. Heated floors began to sag and pull the exterior columns inward, though in some areas the floor connections failed STEP 2: Redistribution of Loads rather than pulling on the exterior columns. In WTC 1, sagging of floors and inward bowing of exterior columns The damage to exterior columns caused their loads occurred on the south side from the 95th to the 99th floors. to be redistributed mostly to the columns next to In WTC 2, sagging of floors and inward bowing of exterior the impact zones. Damage to the core columns was columns occurred on the east side of the building from the distributed mostly to the core columns next to them that 79th to the 83rd floors. were still intact, and to a lesser extent to the exterior columns via the hat truss and floor systems. Additional loading redistribution occurred as some core columns STEP 5: Exterior Columns Buckled, Causing were weakened and thus shortened, redistributing Instability to Spread loads to the exterior columns. Loads increased by up to The bowed exterior columns buckled. Their gravity loads 25% in some areas and decreased by up to 20% in other were transferred to the adjacent exterior columns, but those areas. columns quickly became overloaded as well. In WTC 1, the south wall failed. In WTC 2, the east wall failed. STEP 3: Dislodging of Fireproofing The sprayed-on fireproofing was completely dislodged STEP 6: Global Collapse Ensued on all sides of some exterior columns, trusses, core The portions of the buildings above where the failures beams, and all the gypsum board was knocked off occurred tilted in the direction of the failed walls, some core columns over a wide area of multiple floors. accompanied by a downward movement. The stories below According to NIST, the dislodging of fireproofing was the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the necessary for the collapses to have occurred: “The falling upper sections. ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ARCHITECTS

14 WTC 7, Dr. Sunder said that NIST had some “prelimi- nary hypotheses,” then added, “But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” This was three and a half years into NIST’s WTC investigation.

That same month, NIST awarded a new contract to Applied Research Associates for the job of determining A floor plan of WTC 1. Rather than a conventional the location and cause of the initiating event and the sub- design where the support columns are arranged WTC 1 during construction. sequent series of failures that led to the total collapse in a grid, the designers concentrated all of the columns at the center and the perimeter, creating of WTC 7. The contract was appended in August 2006 to a central core and an outer shell connected by include the task of determining if any “hypothetical blast horizontal floor trusses spanning from the center event or events” contributed to the destruction of WTC 7. to the perimeter. As we will see in Chapter 6, NIST would use the analysis performed under this contract in its attempt to disprove the hypothesis of controlled demolition.

In August 2008, the draft for public comment was finally released. That November, the final report was published. Diesel fuel fires and structural damage were no longer hypothesized to have contributed to the collapse. In- A floor plan of WTC 7. According to NIST, A view of the 47-story WTC stead, normal office fires were said to be the sole cause, Column 79 on the northeast side was the first 7 from the viewing area of column to fail. WTC 2. making it “the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires.” n

Table 3: Summary of NIST’s Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 7

STEP 1: Debris from WTC 1 Ignited Fires STEP 6A: Buckling of Column 79 Falling debris from WTC 1, which collapsed at 10:28 AM, Due to the cascade of floors, Column 79 was left laterally ignited fires on at least 10 different floors between Floors unsupported over nine floors, causing the column to buckle 7 and 30. eastward between Floors 5 and 14. As Column 79 buckled, its upper section dropped, causing the kink and subsequent STEP 2: Fire Spread fall of the east penthouse observed in videos. Because water was not available in WTC 7, as a result of the water main being broken when WTC 1 collapsed, STEP 6B: Buckling of Columns 80 and 81 the automatic sprinkler system and the firefighters were The cascading failures of the lower floors surrounding unable to suppress the fires. Fires on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 Column 79 led to increased unsupported length in Columns to 13 spread over the course of several hours. 80 and 81, as well as debris falling onto them and loads being redistributed to them, causing them to buckle. STEP 3: Thermal Expansion of Beams The fires heated steel floor beams in affected areas to STEP 7: Propagation of Internal Column and temperatures up to 700°C (1,292°F), causing them to Floor Failures thermally expand and damaging the floor framing on All of the floor connections to Columns 79, 80, and 81 as several floors. well as the connections to the exterior columns failed, causing all the floors on the east side of the building to STEP 4: Girder Walk-off fall and leaving the exterior façade on the east quarter of On the northeast corner of the building below the 13th WTC 7 a hollow shell. The interior column failures then floor, thermally expanding beams below Floor 13 pushed progressed westward, with each north-south line of three a critical girder (girder A2001) off of its seat at core core columns buckling in succession as a result of the loss corner Column 79. This thermal expansion occurred at of lateral support from floor system failures plus forces temperatures at or below approximately 400°C (750°F), exerted by falling debris plus and the redistribution of loads which is “hundreds of degrees below those typically from buckled columns. This sequence led to the drop of the considered in design practice for establishing structural screen wall and west penthouse. fire resistance ratings.” STEP 8: Failure of the Exterior Columns STEP 5: Cascade of Floor Failures With loads redistributed to the exterior columns, the The unsupported girder, along with other local fire-induced exterior columns buckled between Floors 7 and 14, damage, caused Floor 13 to collapse. This caused a causing the entire visible section of the building to drop uniformly as a unit, as observed in the videos. BEYOND MISINFORMATION BEYOND cascade of floor failures down to Floor 5.

15 3 The Destruction of WTC 1 and WTC 2

This chapter provides an overview of the evidence regarding the structural behavior of WTC 1 and WTC 2 during their destruction. The features of their behavior that will be examined include the onset of collapse, the downward acceleration of the upper sections, the manner in which the buildings’ materials were destroyed, the high velocity bursts of debris (“demolition squibs”) seen during collapse, and eyewitness accounts of the destruction.

In the last chapter, we examined the official investi- hypothesis of fire-induced failure advanced by NIST gations conducted by FEMA and NIST and found that or with the hypothesis of controlled demolition. To instead of starting with the most likely hypothesis — guide our evaluation of these competing hypotheses, which we have established as controlled demolition we now turn to a third principle that is fundamental — investigators started with the hypothesis of fire-in- to the scientific method. David Ray Griffin describes duced failure. They then clung to that hypothesis to it as follows: “None of the relevant evidence should the end, considering and rejecting various versions be ignored.”1 This principle is of central importance of it over several years, and, in the case of FEMA’s in evaluating the official hypothesis. WTC 7 investigation, acknowledging that their best hypothesis had only a low probability of occurrence. For, as we will see below, NIST ignored a large amount of the relevant evidence by stopping its analysis at We will now examine the evidence regarding the the point of “collapse initiation.” Instead of providing structural behavior of WTC 1 and WTC 2 during their an explanation for what actually happened — the

ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ARCHITECTS destruction (WTC 7 will be covered in the next chapter) observed behavior of the buildings during their de- and evaluate whether it is more consistent with the struction — NIST limited the scope of its investigation 16 to determining what failure is that the onset of collapse is gradual, with could have happened randomly distributed, visible deformations appear- to initiate the collaps- ing prior to the collapse. According to the authors es. After that point, of Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel, “A steel structure, NIST asserted that generally speaking, does not collapse suddenly global (total) collapse when attacked by fire. There are unmistakable became inevitable. warning signs, namely, large deformations.”2 NIST clearly described WTC 2 exterior columns bowing inward across the By most accounts, the onset of collapse of WTC 1 east face between Floors 77 and 83 at 9:58:55 a.m. its approach in a foot- (NIST NCSTAR 1-6, page 178, Figure 6-21). note on page 82 of its and WTC 2 was sudden. As described by research- final report: ers Frank Legge and Anthony Szamboti in the paper 9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation The focus of the Investigation was on the se- was Impossible, “A slow, protracted, and sagging quence of events from the instant of aircraft collapse was not observed…. As observed in the impact to the initiation of collapse for each videos…the upper sections suddenly start to fall and tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence disintegrate.” is referred to as the “probable collapse se- quence,” although it includes little analysis of NIST’s probable collapse sequence, however, por- the structural behavior of the tower after the trays the onset as being not sudden in two ways: conditions for collapse initiation were reached 1. NIST claimed that the bowing of exterior columns and collapse became inevitable. began several minutes before the collapses initiated.3 However, the observed bowing, which occurred only on a portion of one wall in each Sudden Onset building, does not amount to the kind of “unmis- takable warning signs” or “large deformations” As discussed in Chapter 1, one of the features of that would be expected to precede fire-induced controlled demolition is the sudden onset of col- failure. If the inward bowing had been significant lapse; whereas one of the features of fire-induced enough to affect the structure, it should have been much more pronounced, in which case NIST’s hypothesis of inward bowing exterior col- umns would have become a leading hypothesis much earlier than it did.

2. NIST then claimed that the bowing walls buckled and that instability subsequently spread to the rest of the exterior columns. Yet there is no visual evidence of either of these phenomena occurring prior to the onset of collapse. Readers are left to assume that this process was invisible and/or that it all happened in a single instant as part of the collapse initiation. According to Kevin Ryan, a former laboratory manager at Underwriters Laboratories, “instability spread would have taken much more time and would not result in uniform free fall [of the upper section onto the lower structure for a distance of up to one sto- ry].”4 In addition, prior to any movement in the area of the 95th floor, where inward bowing was Above left: The initiation of collapse of WTC 2. focused, the videos of WTC 1 show the collapse Above right: The initiation of collapse of WTC 1. These video initiating at the 98th floor, with a large amount of frames show the collapse initiating at the 98th floor instead of at the 95th floor where the inward bowing of exterior columns smoke being ejected on all sides of the building. BEYOND MISINFORMATION BEYOND was focused. The expulsion of smoke at the 98th floor is acknowledged by NIST on page 163 of NCSTAR 1-6. The gradual process and series of structural fail- 17 ures that NIST claims occurred are not apparent in down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. the videos, which instead show the sudden fall and disintegration of the upper sections. However, NIST provided no calculations or mod- eling to support its claims. Instead it simply cited the videos as evidence. A Request for Correction to NIST’s report, filed under the Information Quality Constant Acceleration Act in 2007 by a group of scientists, an architect, and through the Path of two 9/11 family members, argued that this was not Greatest Resistance scientifically valid: Here, NIST has not offered any explanation as According to NIST, once collapse initiated, WTC 1 and to why (i.e. the technical cause of) the story WTC 2 fell in approximately 11 seconds and 9 sec- below the collapse zone was not able to arrest onds, respectively,5 each coming down “essentially in free fall.”6 To many observers, the speed of collapse the downward movement of the upper floors. was the most striking feature of their destruction. The statement “as evidenced by the videos from several vantage points” is only an explanation of Yet, NIST’s explanation for why WTC 1 and WTC 2 what occurred, but gives the reader absolutely collapsed “essentially in free fall” was limited to a no idea why it occurred. Basic principles of half-page section of its 10,000-page report titled engineering (for example, the conservation of “Events Following Collapse Initiation.” In this momentum principle) would dictate that the section, NIST attempted to explain the speed and undamaged steel structure below the collapse completeness of the collapses simply by saying: zone would, at the very least, resist and slow the downward movement of the stories above.

It was not stopped by NIST’s use of the videos as evidence to explain why the lower structures failed to resist the fall of the “the floors below. So there upper sections was repeated by investigator John Gross in a talk he gave at the University of Texas in was no calculation that we October 2006. In his talk, he actually refers to the did to demonstrate what is video evidence as the reason why NIST did not need to perform analysis: “Once the collapse initiated, the clear from the videos.” video evidence is rather clear. It was not stopped by the floors below. So there was no calculation that we — NIST Investigator John Gross did to demonstrate what is clear from the videos.”7

The story immediately below the stories in But, as the Request for Correction pointed out, the which the columns failed was not able to arrest inability of the lower structures to arrest the fall of this initial movement as evidenced by videos the upper sections is what effectively claimed the from several vantage points. lives of 421 first responders and 118 occupants at or below the impact zones,8 and thus it deserved The structure below the level of collapse initi- thorough explanation: ation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The families of the firefighters and WTC em- The potential energy released by the down- ployees that were trapped in the stairwells ward movement of the large building mass far when the entirety of the WTC Towers collapsed exceeded the capacity of the intact structure on top of them would surely appreciate an ad- below to absorb that through energy of defor- equate explanation of why the lower structure mation. failed to arrest or even resist the collapse of the upper floors. Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the In its reply, NIST stated: tremendous energy released by the falling ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ARCHITECTS building mass, the building section above came NIST carried its analysis to the point where 18 the buildings reached global instability. At this destroyed by another force before the upper section point, because of the magnitude of deflections reached it. and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on In January 2011, the ASCE’s Journal of Engineering Me- a solution…. [W]e were unable to provide a full chanics published a paper by Dr. Zdenek Bazant and explanation of the total collapse. Jia-Liang Le titled Why the Observed Motion History of the World Trade Center Towers is Smooth. This paper was a response to The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refuta- Providing a Full Explanation of the tion of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis, a paper Total Collapse critiquing Bazant’s earlier work attempting to explain While NIST acknowledges being “unable to provide why the lower structures provided so little resistance a full explanation of the total collapse,” other re- to the upper sections. In the 2011 paper, Bazant and Le searchers on both sides of the issue have analyzed claimed that the deceleration of WTC 1’s upper section the question extensively through methods other was “far too small to be perceptible,” thus accounting than computer model- for why the observed motion is “smooth.” ing. Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer and one of A number of papers the authors of “The Missing Jolt,” and Richard Johns, supporting the hy- a professor of Philosophy of Science, submitted a pothesis of controlled Discussion paper in May 2011 arguing that Bazant demolition have mea- and Le used incorrect values for the resistance of sured the fall of WTC 1’s the columns, for the lower structure’s floor mass, upper section and have and for the upper section’s total mass. By simply observed that it never correcting the values, Szamboti and Johns argued In this graph from Szamboti and Johns’ Discussion slowed down in the that Bazant and Le’s analysis actually proves that paper, the observed velocity of the roofline of the deceleration of the upper section would be sig- WTC 1 is compared with the velocity calculated four seconds before it using Bazant and Le’s analytical method, but disappeared from view. nificant (if demolition were not involved), and that with corrected input values, showing significant Rather, its acceleration the collapse would arrest in about three seconds.10 decelerations at each floor.11 remained constant, While the Journal of Engineering Mechanics inexplica- at approximately 64 bly rejected Szamboti and Johns’ Discussion paper percent of free fall,9 and there was never an observ- as “out of scope,” Szamboti, Johns, and Dr. Gregory able deceleration, which would be required if the Szuladzinski, a world-renowned expert in structural upper section had impacted and crushed the lower mechanics, were able to publish a paper addressing structure. A lack of deceleration would indicate Bazant and Le’s analysis in the International Journal with absolute certainty that the lower structure was of Protective Structures, titled Some Misunderstand-

The Journal of Engineering Mechanics’ Rejection of the Szamboti-Johns Discussion Paper Although it is customary for journals to publish Discussion Szamboti and Johns appealed the matter to the ASCE’s papers about previously published papers, Szamboti and Engineering Mechanics Institute Board of Governors, Johns’ Discussion paper responding to Bazant and Le’s “Why the body that oversees the Journal of Engineering the Observed Motion History of the World Trade Center Towers Mechanics. Without finding errors in Szamboti and Is Smooth” was never published by the Journal of Engineering Johns’ paper or explaining why it was appropriate Mechanics, despite passing peer review. to be deemed out of scope, the Board of Governors determined that Szamboti and Johns were treated fairly Szamboti and Johns submitted their Discussion paper in May and stood by the Journal’s decision to reject the paper. 2011. After a year they were told that their paper had been rejected by one peer reviewer (the second reviewer did not Later, Roger Ghanem, the President of the Board of respond). Szamboti and Johns found the reviewer’s comments Governors, told Szamboti: “While your paper may very to be erroneous and submitted a rebuttal. The Journal then well be within the scope of the Journal, the Board’s informed them that their paper had completed peer review review of your case was concerned with whether or and would only require editorial review. not the submission was treated fairly and in a manner that is consistent with the policies of the Journal of Another year passed with no action. In May 2013, Szamboti Engineering Mechanics.” and Johns contacted the Journal’s editors. Three months later, the editors informed Szamboti and Johns that their Discussion paper was “out of scope” for the Journal. BEYOND MISINFORMATION BEYOND

19 ings Related to the WTC Collapse Analysis.

Today, Bazant and Le’s paper is the sole piece of analysis upon which the official hypothesis’ expla- nation for the total collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 rests. By rejecting Szamboti and Johns’ Discussion paper, the Journal of Engineering Mechanics has sup- pressed criticism of Bazant and Le’s paper within its walls. But the papers discussed herein, published elsewhere, argue compellingly that the constant acceleration and lack of observable deceleration, The pulverized concrete submerged lower Manhattan in enormous by themselves, constitute irrefutable evidence that dust clouds and blanketed the streets with several inches of dust. explosives were used to destroy WTC 1 and WTC 2.

Pulverization, Dismemberment, and Explosive Ejection of Materials

Because NIST stopped its analysis at the point of collapse initiation, it did not provide an explanation for the manner in which the buildings’ materials Debris from the dismembered structures of WTC 1 and WTC 2. were destroyed. dismemberment of 220 stories of steel structure? NIST provides no explanation, and gravity alone appears to be implausible. A simple analysis of Pulverization and Dismemberment the approximate amount of energy required to One of the most noticeable features of the two build- pulverize the concrete and dismember the steel ings’ destruction was the near-total pulverization of structures indicates that about 1,255 gigajoules of their concrete flooring. New York Governor George energy would have been required, far exceeding the Pataki provided this account: estimated 508 gigajoules of gravitational potential energy contained in the buildings.13 There’s no concrete. There’s very little con- crete. All you see is aluminum and steel. The The near-total pulverization and dismemberment concrete was pulverized. And I was down here of the structures becomes even more difficult to ex- on Tuesday, and it was like you were on a for- plain when we consider that the collapses occurred eign planet. All over lower Manhattan — not just “essentially in free fall.” Near-total pulverization and this site — from river to river, there was dust, dismemberment would require a tremendous colli- powder two, three inches thick. The concrete sion of materials at each floor, and yet NIST claims 12 was just pulverized. that the structure below “offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass.” The official hypothesis In addition, the buildings’ steel structures were almost thus attempts to have it both ways: “minimal resis- entirely dismembered. Aside from some of the exteri- tance,” “free fall,” deceleration “far too small to be or walls at the base of each building still standing, vir- perceptible” — and yet near-total pulverization and tually all of their steel skeletons were broken up into dismemberment of the buildings’ concrete and steel. small pieces, with the core structures separated into But according to Dr. Steven Jones, a former physics individual members and the exterior columns broken up into three-story, prefabricated sections. professor at Brigham Young University, “The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypoth- What can explain the near-total pulverization of ap- esis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor proximately 8.8 million square feet of 5.5-inch-thick material including steel support columns and allow ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ARCHITECTS lightweight concrete flooring and the near-total near free-fall-speed collapses.”14 20 Explosive spring action. But we are not seeing isolated Ejection of jumping girders. We are seeing a major fraction Materials of the mass of the building…reduced to small As the concrete was pieces of rubble and fine dust, and being explo- being pulverized and sively ejected in all directions. the structures were being dismembered, a large percentage of the Demolition Squibs buildings’ materials was ejected upwards Along with the pulverization, dismemberment, and and laterally in an arc- explosive ejection of the buildings’ materials, we ob- like manner far beyond served what Kevin Ryan describes as “high velocity the perimeters of the bursts of debris ejected from point-like sources.”15 buildings. According According to Ryan, “[T]he demolition hypothesis to the FEMA Building suggests that these bursts of debris are the result Performance Study, of the detonation of explosive charges (squibs), the debris fields ex- placed at key points in the structure to facilitate the tended as far as 400 removal of resistance.” Ryan goes on to describe to 500 feet from each these apparent squibs in more detail: tower’s base. In the videos we can see these bursts being The materials of WTC 1, including multi-ton beams, ejected from the sides of the towers nearly 30 being explosively ejected several hundred feet in In the popular all directions. five-minute video titled floors below the collapse front…. North Tower Exploding, Each of these was a sharp emission that produced by physics teacher David Chandler, he de- appeared to come from a point-like source, scribes the observed explosive ejection of materials ejecting approximately 50 to 100 feet from the from WTC 1: side of the building in a fraction of a second. 16 [U]nder the canopy of falling debris, do you see From the extracted frames of the KTLA video, the rapid sequence of explosive ejections of we can estimate that one of the bursts was fully material? Some of the jets have been clocked ejected in approximately .45 seconds. This gives at over 100 mph…. They’re continuous and an average burst velocity of approximately 170 widespread. They move progressively down feet per second. the faces of the building, keeping pace with the NIST’s explanation for these high-velocity bursts falling debris…. The building is being progres- of debris is provided not in its final report, but in sively destroyed from the top down by waves of its FAQs, where it calls them “puffs of smoke” and explosions creating a huge debris field. says, “[T]he falling mass of the building compressed Chandler then describes the hurling of multi-ton the air ahead of it — much like the action of a piston steel members: — forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.” Notice that embedded in the dust clouds are huge girders and entire sections of steel fram- Kevin Ryan offers several arguments for why NIST’s ing that are being hurled out of the building…. explanation is not valid: Some landed as much as two football fields ■■ The floors were not the kind of tightly sealed, away from the base of the tower. highly pressurized containers that would be Chandler next addresses the claim that the ejection of required to generate overpressures strong these girders was caused by a spring action resulting enough to burst windows. from the upper sections crushing down upon them. ■■ The falling mass would need to act as a flat Some people have suggested that the weight of plate exerting uniform pressure at all points. the tower crushing down on the girders caused But the falling upper sections, themselves BEYOND MISINFORMATION BEYOND them to flex and they sprung sideways by a disintegrating as observed in the videos, 21 could not exert uniform ed witnessing explosions, which they consciously pressure. identified as such.

■■ Even if perfect The most comprehensive analysis of these accounts, containers and uniform performed by Dr. Graeme MacQueen, a retired pro- pressure are assumed, fessor of Religious Studies at McMaster University, using the Ideal Gas and documented in Chapter 8 of The 9/11 Toronto Re- Law to calculate the port, identifies 156 such eyewitnesses. The vast ma- change in pressure, jority of them — 135, or 87 percent of the total — are first responders, including 121 from the FDNY and we can determine that fourteen from the Port Authority Police Department. the air pressure would Thirteen are reporters, and the remaining eight Mac- not increase enough to Queen categorizes as “other,” usually people who burst windows. worked near WTC 1 and WTC 2. A selection of these High-velocity bursts of debris, or “squibs,” being ■■ The bursts accounts organized according to the characteristics ejected from point-like sources in WTC 1 and discussed below (Identification, Power, and Pattern) contained pulverized WTC 2, as many as 20 to 30 stories below the is presented in Appendix A on page 44. collapse front. debris, not smoke and dust. Yet building MacQueen suggests that the main objection to in- materials 20 to 30 stories below the collapse terpreting these accounts as evidence of controlled zone could not be pulverized and ejected demolition is that the observed explosions were laterally by air pressure. some other natural form of explosion that occurs in large fires. However, MacQueen identifies three common characteristics among the accounts that Eyewitness Accounts of distinguish the explosions in WTC 1 and WTC 2 from the four kinds of explosions that typically occur in Explosions fires (boiling-liquid-expanding-vapor-explosions or “BLEVEs”; electrical explosions; smoke explosions In addition to the wealth of video and photographic or “backdrafts”; and combustion explosions): evidence regarding the destruction of WTC 1 and WTC 2, there is a wealth of eyewitness accounts. Identification: If the explosions encountered The largest source of eyewitness accounts is the were the type typically encountered in fires, New York Fire Department’s (FDNY’s) World Trade the firefighters would be expected to recog- Center Task Force Interviews, which comprise ap- nize them as such and name them. There are proximately 10,000 to 12,000 pages of statements very few instances where they do so. On the by over 500 FDNY personnel collected from early contrary, they clearly feel these were different October 2001 to late January 2002. types of explosions than those they were used to encountering... NIST declares in its final report that it found “no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses Power: Many eyewitnesses clearly thought suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down they were watching explosions destroy the Twin by controlled demolition using explosives planted Towers. But none of the common four types of prior to September 11, 2001.”17 Although it does not fire-related explosions could accomplish this… elaborate beyond that in its final report, one of the reasons NIST gives in its FAQs is as follows: Pattern: …[M]any eyewitnesses reported reg- ular, rapid energetic events in sequence down [T]here was no evidence (collected by NIST or the building, which cannot be explained by any by…the Fire Department of New York) of any blast of the four common types of explosion. or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections began their The perception that explosions had destroyed WTC 1 downward movement upon collapse initiation. and WTC 2 was so prevalent among firefighters that it became widely discussed. “At that point, a debate This statement ignores and directly contradicts the began to rage because the perception was that ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ARCHITECTS plethora of accounts from eyewitnesses who report- the building looked like it had been taken out with 22 Table 4: How Supporters of the Competing Hypotheses Have Accounted for Each Area of Evidence

INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS: NIST: FIRE-INDUCED FAILURE CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

Sudden Onset Ignore the suddenness and claim the occurrence of Acknowledge and interpret as evidence of the sudden a series of structural failures for which there is no detonation of explosives. evidence.

Constant Acceleration Stop analysis at the point of collapse initiation. Acknowledge and interpret as evidence that explosives Speculatively claim that the collapse became destroyed the lower structures before the upper inevitable after conditions for collapse initiation were sections reached them. reached.

Pulverization, Stop analysis at the point of collapse initiation. Do not Acknowledge and interpret as evidence that explosives Dismemberment, and acknowledge in final report or in FAQs. pulverized, dismembered and explosively ejected the Explosive Ejection of buildings’ materials. Materials

Demolition squibs Stop analysis at the point of collapse initiation. Do Acknowledge and interpret as evidence of explosives not acknowledge in final report. Speculatively claim destroying the structure ahead of the collapse front. in FAQs that they are “puffs of smoke” caused by compressed air.

Eyewitness Accounts of Ignore in final report. In FAQs, deny existence of Acknowledge and interpret as testimonial evidence for Explosions evidence of explosions collected by the FDNY. When the use of explosives. formally challenged, claim that the eyewitness accounts “taken as whole” do not support the hypothesis of controlled demolition.

charges,” said Christopher Fenyo in his WTC Task unteered, and it therefore represents not the Force Interview. John Coyle recalled in his interview, maximum number of witnesses to explosions “I thought it was exploding, actually. That’s what I but the minimum number. thought for hours afterwards…. Everybody I think at that point still thought these things were blown up.”36

The Request for Correction filed with NIST in 2007 ar- Conclusion gued that NIST had, among other problems, ignored In this chapter we examined five areas of evidence the eyewitness evidence of explosions contained in regarding the structural behavior of WTC 1 and WTC the World Trade Center Task Force Interviews. NIST 2 during their destruction. Table 4 above presents responded by saying that it had reviewed them, and, each area of evidence and shows how researchers “Taken as a whole, the interviews did not support the supporting each of the competing hypotheses have contention that explosives played a role in the collapse accounted for this evidence. of the WTC Towers” — a markedly different position from the one given in its FAQs, which said that “There We found that NIST, because it decided to stop its was no evidence (collected by…the Fire Department analysis at the point of collapse initiation, performed of New York) of any blast or explosions….” “little analysis” of the buildings’ structural behavior during the process of their destruction, thus delib- In any case, MacQueen rejects NIST’s assessment, erately ignoring any evidence that could be derived writing in the paper 118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ from it. As a result, NIST’s final report provides Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers: virtually no explanation for the evidence examined We have 118 witnesses out of a pool of 503. above. The very limited explanations NIST does pro- Over 23 percent of our group are explosion vide come mainly from its FAQs webpage, and are witnesses. In my judgment, this is a very high speculative rather than based upon scientific analy- percentage of witnesses, especially when we sis. On the other hand, the hypothesis of controlled consider…[that Interviewees] were typically not demolition readily, simply, and completely explains asked about explosions, and, in most cases, all of the evidence regarding the structural behavior were not even asked about the collapses of of WTC 1 and WTC 2 during their destruction. n BEYOND MISINFORMATION BEYOND the towers. What testimony we have was vol- 23 4 The Destruction of WTC 7

This chapter provides an overview of the evidence regarding the structural behavior of WTC 7 during its destruction. The features that will be examined include WTC 7’s free fall, its dismemberment and compact debris pile, and eyewitness accounts of its destruction. In addition, anticipation by local authorities of WTC 7’s eventual collapse will be examined.

In the last chapter, we examined the evidence re- Whereas NIST’s approach to WTC 1 and WTC 2 was garding the structural behavior of WTC 1 and WTC to stop its analysis at the point of collapse initiation, 2 during their destruction and found that the hy- NIST went beyond the point of collapse initiation with pothesis of controlled demolition much more read- WTC 7. Yet, as we will see below, NIST still ignored ily, simply, and completely explains the available a large amount of the relevant evidence, even going evidence than does the hypothesis of fire-induced as far as attempting to deny the most important failure. This was illustrated in part by the fact that evidence: WTC 7’s sudden and symmetrical free fall. NIST ignored and provided virtually no explanation in its final report for the behavior of WTC 1 and WTC 2 after the point of collapse initiation. Sudden and We will now examine the evidence regarding the Symmetrical Free Fall structural behavior of WTC 7 during its destruction and, in the same manner, evaluate whether it is Today, NIST acknowledges that WTC 7 fell at a

ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ARCHITECTS more consistent with the hypothesis of fire-induced rate of free fall (or the rate of gravity) for a period failure or the hypothesis of controlled demolition. of approximately 2.25 seconds before it started to 24 slow down.1 David Chandler, collapse time of WTC 7 as being 40 percent longer a physics teacher who has than the time it would take to collapse in free fall: studied the behavior of WTC 7 extensively, explains the The time the roofline took to fall 18 stories was significance of free fall in the 5.4 s[econds]…. Thus, the actual time for the up- article titled Free Fall and per 18 floors of the north face to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent Building 7 on 9/11: longer than the computed free fall time…. Newton’s third law says that Questions and An- when objects interact, they NIST repeated this claim in its swers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation always exert equal and op- (WTC 7 posite forces on each other. FAQs), stating unequivocally, “WTC 7 did not enter Therefore, while an object is free fall.” NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, repeated it again at NIST’s WTC 7 Technical Briefing falling, if it exerts any force on August 26, 2008, when asked the following ques- on objects in its path, those tion, which had been submitted by David Chandler: objects must push back,

slowing the fall. If an object Any number of competent measurements using is observed to be in free a variety of methods indicate the northwest fall, we can conclude that corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within nothing in the path exerts a a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. force to slow it down…. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40 percent slower than free fall, based on a single Applying this to WTC 7, he data point. How can such a publicly visible, eas- explains: ily measurable quantity be set aside? [F]ree fall is not consistent Dr. Sunder responded by articulating the meaning with any natural scenario of free fall in the clearest terms possible, but denied involving weakening, buck- that is what happened in the case of WTC 7: ling, or crushing because in any such a scenario there [A] free-fall time would be an object that has would be large forces of no structural components below it…. What interaction with the under- the analysis shows…is that same time it took lying structure that would for the structural model to come down…is 5.4 have slowed the fall…. seconds. It’s about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 Natural collapse resulting percent, more time for that free fall to happen. in free fall is simply not And that is not at all unusual because there was WTC 7 is shown falling symmetrically into its plausible…. structural resistance that was provided in this own footprint. It accelerated at free fall for particular case. 2.25 seconds of its descent. Chandler and others therefore interpret WTC 7’s free fall as evidence of controlled demolition. How does NIST explain the occurrence NIST’s Alleged 5.4-Second Collapse Time of free fall according to its hypothesis of fire-induced The reason for the discrepancy between Chandler’s failure? To answer that question satisfactorily, we measurement and NIST’s measurement is contained must first examine NIST’s initial attempt to deny the in Dr. Sunder’s statement above, where he explains occurrence of free fall. that NIST’s computer model showed a collapse time of 5.4 seconds. As Chandler comments in Part 1 of the NIST’s Denial of Free Fall video series NIST Finally Admits Free Fall:

On August 21, 2008 — six years to the day after Don’t you find it interesting that the 5.4 seconds NIST’s World Trade Center investigation was first [NIST] measured for the collapse time just hap-

BEYOND MISINFORMATION BEYOND announced — NIST released its draft report on pens to exactly match the theoretical prediction of WTC 7 for public comment. In it, NIST described the their model? That kind of precision is incredibly 25 rare when modeling real world events. Chandler then describes a second important feature of WTC 7’s free fall: Indeed, when we count backwards 5.4 seconds from the point at which the The onset of free fall was not only sudden, it roofline disappears from view, we find extended across the whole width of the build- that there is no obvious, continuous ing. My measurement of the acceleration was Dr. Shyam Sunder explains movement of the building that could be based on the northwest corner. NIST’s recent the meaning of free fall at NIST’s WTC 7 Technical reasonably interpreted as the start of the measurement confirming free fall was based Briefing on August 26, 2008. collapse. According to Chandler, “Since on a point midway along the roofline. their model predicted 5.4 seconds for the 18-story collapse, they dutifully conjured up a Taking the rate of acceleration, suddenness, and 5.4-second measurement to match [the model].” symmetry of WTC 7’s descent into account, Chan- Then, NIST assumed that the downward accelera- dler concludes: tion during those 5.4 seconds was “approximately The collapse we see cannot be due to a column constant”2 — even though the building was almost entirely motionless for more than a second. Based upon this inaccurate characterization of WTC 7’s motion, NIST denied the occurrence of free fall.

NIST’s Acknowledgment of Free Fall To the surprise of many observers, NIST reversed its position in its final report, acknowledging that WTC 7 did enter free fall for 2.25 seconds. But NIST still maintained the total collapse time of 5.4 seconds, which now comprised three separate stages: David Chandler’s graph from Part 3 of NIST Finally Admits Free Fall plots the velocity of WTC 7’s roofline versus time. The slope shows a free-fall rate of acceleration. The sudden change in ■■ Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less slope shows the sudden onset of free fall. than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall) failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns ■■ Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational and 58 perimeter columns had to have been acceleration (free fall) removed over the span of eight floors low in ■■ Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased the building simultaneously to within a small acceleration, again less than that of gravity3 fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and However, in the first stage — which NIST character- uncrumpled. izes as “a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded with the buckling While the hypothesis of controlled demolition of the exterior columns at the lower floors” — the building is actually nearly motionless. By asserting a first stage in which we are to imagine “the buckling of exterior columns” causing “a slow descent,” NIST is obscuring an important feature of WTC 7’s free fall: its sudden onset. In Part 3 of the video series NIST Finally Admits Free Fall, Chandler observes:

What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [plotting the rate of accel- NIST’s model of WTC 7’s collapse shows large deformations to eration] simply turns a corner. The building went the exterior of WTC 7 not observed in the videos, while failing to ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ARCHITECTS from full support to zero support instantly…. show 2.25 seconds of free fall. 26 explains WTC 7’s free or another, or straight down. fall readily, simply, and completely, NIST’s final It is difficult to imagine an outcome that requires report provided no ex- this high degree of planning and engineering being planation for how free achieved by a spontaneous, fire-induced, gravi- fall was accomplished. ty-driven collapse. Indeed, NIST’s computer model It simply asserted, “The terminates shortly after the initiation of collapse, three stages of collapse and NIST does not attempt to explain the structural dismemberment and compact debris compile in any WTC 7’s steel structure was dismembered and progression described deposited into a compact debris pile. above are consistent other section of its report. with the results of the global collapse analyses discussed in Chapter 12 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9,” (the chapter that presents the Eyewitness Accounts of results of NIST’s “global model”). But that statement is incorrect. The free fall in Stage 2 is not shown in Explosions NIST’s model. The failure of NIST’s computer model NIST claims in its WTC 7 FAQs that “no blast sounds to replicate the observed descent of WTC 7 will be were heard on audio tracks of video recordings examined more closely in Chapter 6. during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witness- es.” However, both audio recordings and eyewitness accounts of explosions during the destruction of Structural WTC 7 contradict NIST’s claim.

Dismemberment into a Although there are not nearly as many eyewitness Compact Debris Pile accounts of explosions in WTC 7 as in WTC 1 and WTC 2, there are a handful of accounts that strongly As with the destruction WTC 1 and WTC 2, the steel suggest explosions occurred immediately before structure of WTC 7 was almost entirely dismem- and during WTC 7’s destruction. These include: bered, though, unlike the debris from WTC 1 and WTC 2, “The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within ■■ Craig Bartmer, former NYPD officer: the original footprint of the building,” according to [A]ll of a sudden…I looked up, and… [t]he NIST. thing started peeling in on itself…. I started running…and the whole time you’re hearing As discussed in Chapter 1, structural dismember- “thume, thume, thume, thume, thume.” I ment is a key feature of controlled demolition. In a think I know an explosion when I hear it.4 1996 interview with NOVA, Stacey Loizeaux of Con- trolled Demolition, Inc. described the process that is ■■ First-year NYU medical student identified used to dismember a building’s structure and have as Darryl: [W]e heard this sound that it fall into its footprint: sounded like a clap of thunder…. [T]urned around — we were shocked…. [I]t looked like Depending on the height of the structure, we’ll there was a shockwave ripping through the work on a couple different floors — usually any- building and the windows all busted out…. where from two to six…. [W]e work on several [A]bout a second later the bottom floor caved upper floors to help fragment debris for the out and the building followed after that.5 contractor, so all the debris ends up in small, manageable pieces…. The term “implosion”… ■■ Kevin McPadden, unaffiliated, volunteer [is] a more descriptive way to explain what we first responder: And then it was like another do than “explosion.” There are a series of small two, three seconds, you heard explosions. explosions, but the building itself isn’t erupting Like BA-BOOOOOM! And it’s like a distinct outward. It’s actually being pulled in on top sound…BA-BOOOOOM! And you felt a rumble of itself. What we’re really doing is removing in the ground, like, almost like you wanted to specific support columns within the structure grab onto something.6

BEYOND MISINFORMATION BEYOND and then cajoling the building in one direction 27 These eyewitness accounts are corrob- selection of accounts showing this widespread orated by MSNBC video footage of re- anticipation is presented in Appendix B on page 46. porter Ashleigh Banfield several blocks north of WTC 7. In the video, she hears The official hypothesis would have us believe that a loud sound, turns her attention to WTC the authorities’ anticipation was “evidence-based,” 7, and says, “Oh my god…. This is it.” a prediction made on the basis of assessing the damage and fires in WTC 7. However, when examined MSNBC reporter Ashleigh About seven seconds after she hears the Banfield hears a loud sound loud sound, WTC 7 collapses. As David closely, the high degree of confidence and precision from several blocks north Chandler observes in the video Sound suggests that it was instead knowledge-based. In of WTC 7 and says, “Oh my other words, someone at the scene had foreknowl- god…. This is it.” Evidence for Explosions: edge that WTC 7 was going to be brought down and There were two blasts, followed by seven more began warning others in order to avoid casualties regularly spaced all in two and a half seconds. and to create the cover story of a fire-induced Craig Bartmer’s testimony may come to mind: failure. Thus, the warnings were couched as an “The whole time you’re hearing ‘thume, thume, evidence-based prediction that the building would thume, thume, thume.’”…. collapse due to structural damage and fire.

When we hear the sharp, regular series of The view that the anticipation was knowledge-based sounds in the background, the building has not rather than evidence-based is strongly supported by yet started to fall. When we hear the reporter the following facts: say, “This is it,” the building has not yet started ■■ to fall…. The blasts we heard occurred seconds NIST’s probable collapse sequence consists before the building started to fall. of an unprecedented and undetectable series of structural failures that could In addition to eyewitness accounts of explosions at not be predicted on the basis of observing the time of WTC 7’s destruction, there were eye- structural damage (which NIST later claimed witness accounts from two men — Michael Hess did not contribute to the collapse) and fires. (Corporation Counsel for the City of New York) and If we assume NIST’s hypothesis to be true, Barry Jennings (Deputy Director of Emergency there would be no reason to anticipate a total Services at the New York City Housing Authority) — collapse, even within the seconds before who reported experiencing an explosion and smoke it occurred. Based on NIST’s scenario, the in a stairway in the northeast part of WTC 7 prior event that the authorities predicted had an to the collapse of WTC 1 at 10:28 AM.7 It has been infinitesimal probability of occurring until claimed that what Hess and Jennings experienced just seconds before it did. At that point, was the result of debris from WTC 1 impacting WTC an extremely improbable chain of events 7. However, this claim is not plausible, as Hess and unfolded and made their prediction correct. Jennings were in a stairway at the opposite end of Such a scenario is not plausible. WTC 7 (northeast) from where debris impacted the building (southwest), and their account indicates ■■ A number of buildings in the vicinity were that the explosion and smoke they witnessed oc- on fire and sustained much greater damage curred before the collapse of WTC 1.8 from the destruction of WTC 1 and WTC 2. Yet authorities seized on WTC 7 as the one building that was certain to go down and Foreknowledge of established a safety zone around it. WTC 7’s Destruction ■■ The FEMA Building Performance Study concluded that the best hypothesis it could About an hour after the destruction of WTC 1 at come up with had “only a low probability of 10:28 AM, the authorities at the World Trade Center occurrence.” How were the authorities able began anticipating the collapse of WTC 7 with a high to predict such a low-probability event? degree of confidence and precision. Their anticipa- tion was so strong that the media widely reported on ■■ Engineers were “stunned by what happened WTC 7’s imminent collapse, with some news outlets to 7 World Trade Center” and unable to

ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ARCHITECTS even reporting the collapse before it occurred. A explain it. Even as late as March 2006, NIST’s

28 Table 5: How Researchers Have Accounted for the Evidence Regarding the Structural Behavior of WTC 7

NIST: FIRE-INDUCED FAILURE INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS: CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

Sudden Symmetrical Free Attempt to deny the occurrence of free fall. Then Acknowledge and interpret as evidence that Fall acknowledge it but obscure its significance and explosives were used to remove all of the columns provide no explanation. simultaneously.

Structural Dismemberment Terminate computer model shortly after collapse Acknowledge and interpret as evidence that explosives into a Compact Debris Pile initiation and provide no explanation for observed dismembered the structure and deposited it into a phenomena. compact debris pile.

Eyewitness Accounts of Deny the existence of audio recordings and Acknowledge and interpret as evidence of explosives. Explosions eyewitness accounts of explosions.

Foreknowledge of Provide a hypothesis that is incompatible with the Acknowledge and interpret as evidence of Destruction high degree of confidence and precision with which foreknowledge that WTC 7 was going to be brought the destruction of WTC 7 was anticipated. down.

Conclusion

In this chapter we examined three areas of evidence regarding the structural behavior of WTC 7 during its destruction, as well as the anticipation by local authorities of WTC 7’s eventual collapse. Table 5 above presents each area of evidence and shows how researchers supporting the competing hypoth- eses have accounted for this evidence.

WTC 7 before and after its collapse. Based on NIST’s probable collapse sequence, First, we found that NIST attempted to deny the most there would be no reason to predict a total collapse until seconds before it occurred. important evidence regarding WTC 7’s destruction: its sudden and symmetrical free fall. NIST later lead investigator told New York Magazine, “I acknowledged that WTC 7 entered free fall, but it don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting obscured the significance of free fall and provided a handle on building No. 7.” How were the no explanation for how it was accomplished. We authorities able to predict an event that then saw that NIST provided no explanation for engineers would be unable to explain even WTC 7’s structural dismemberment and compact four and half years later? debris pile, and that it denied the existence of audio recordings and eyewitness accounts of explosions. ■■ A CNN video captured both the sound of Finally, we saw that NIST provided a hypothesis of an explosion coming from WTC 7 and an fire-induced failure that is incompatible with the emergency worker’s warning that WTC 7 was high degree of confidence and precision with which “about to blow up” just seconds before its the destruction of WTC 7 was anticipated. destruction: On the other hand — as with WTC 1 and WTC 2 — [Sound of explosion]. Unidentified voice: “You the hypothesis of controlled demolition readily, hear that?” Voice of emergency worker #1: simply, and completely explains all of the evidence “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming regarding the structural behavior of WTC 7 during down….” Voice of emergency worker #2: “Build- its destruction. It also explains the high degree of ing is about to blow up, move it back…. Here confidence and precision with which WTC 7’s de- we are looking back, there’s a building about to struction was anticipated. n blow up. Flame and debris coming down.”9

■■ There are at least four accounts showing that a controlled demolition was being considered or planned. (See Appendix B on page 46.) BEYOND MISINFORMATION BEYOND

29 Photomicrographs of red-gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples. The inset in (d) shows the gray layer of the chips.

5 High-Temperature Thermitic Reactions

This chapter provides an overview of evidence showing the occurrence of high- temperature thermitic reactions in the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. The evidence that will be examined includes molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2, molten metal in the debris of all three buildings, sulfidated steel in WTC 7, and iron spherules and nano-thermite in the World Trade Center dust.

In the last two chapters, we examined the evidence and explosion investigations, states: “All available regarding the structural behavior of WTC 1, WTC 2, fuel sources should be considered and eliminated and WTC 7 during their destruction. We will now turn until one fuel can be identified as meeting all the to evidence showing the occurrence of high-tem- physical damage criteria as well as any other perature chemical reactions before and during the significant data.” On the potential use of exotic destruction of the buildings. As in previous chapters, accelerants, including thermite, NFPA 921 advises: we will evaluate whether this evidence is more con- “Indicators of exotic accelerants include…melted sistent with the hypothesis of fire-induced failure or steel or concrete.” the hypothesis of controlled demolition. As we will see below, NIST did not follow NFPA 921. To guide our evaluation of the competing hypoth- Instead, it handled the evidence of high-temperature eses, we will apply the third principle discussed chemical reactions in much the same way it handled earlier — “None of the relevant evidence should be the evidence regarding the structural behavior of the ignored” — to the investigation of high-temperature buildings: either denying it, ignoring it, or providing chemical reactions. “Chapter 23: Explosions” of speculative explanations not based upon scientific ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ARCHITECTS NFPA 921, which is the national guideline for fire analysis. This is because there is no plausible, logical 30 explanation for the occur- likely molten iron from a thermite reaction OR rence of high-temperature pouring molten aluminum? chemical reactions other than controlled demolition The yellow color implies a molten metal tem- using thermite-based mech- perature of approximately 1,000°C, evidently anisms. above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce…. Also, the fact that the liquid metal retains an orange A thermite reaction. Molten Metal hue as it nears the ground…further rules out Pouring out aluminum…. We also noted [in our experiments] that…the of WTC 2 falling aluminum displayed a silvery-gray color, Just before 9:52 AM, molten adding significantly to the evidence that the metal began pouring out of yellow-white molten metal flowing out from the WTC 2 near the northeast South Tower shortly before its collapse was NOT Molten aluminum. corner of the 80th floor and molten aluminum. continued to flow with in- In its FAQs posted in August 2006, almost a year af- creasing intensity until the ter the release of its final report, NIST attempted to collapse at 9:59 AM. NIST address the criticism that molten aluminum would KEY TERMS provided ample documen- tation of the pouring molten have a silvery appearance: Thermite: A mixture of powdered metal, which it described aluminum and iron oxide (rust). When Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to ignited, the aluminum reduces the and hypothesized as follows: iron oxide to molten iron at 2,500°C appear silvery. However, the molten metal (4,500°F). It is typically used for was very likely mixed with large amounts of welding railroad ties and in grenades. Just over a second [after It is not typically used in controlled 9:51:51 AM], a bright spot hot, partially burned, solid organic materials… demolitions. appeared at the top of one which can display an orange glow, much like

Nano-thermite: Thermite made of window…and a glowing logs burning in a fireplace. nano-particles (~four billionths of liquid began to pour from an inch). Its increased surface area While NIST did not test its hypothesis — merely this location…. causes it to burn much faster than asserting that it was “very likely” — Dr. Jones did: conventional thermite. The composition of the flowing material can only NIST states the hypothesis that flowing alumi- be the subject of speculation, but its behavior num with partially burned organic materials suggests it could have been molten aluminum…. mixed in, “can display an orange glow.” But will The Aluminum Association Handbook…lists the it really do this? I decided to do an experiment melting point ranges for the alloys [comprising to find out…. Of course, we saw a few burning the Boeing 767 structure] as roughly 500°C embers, but this did not alter the silvery ap- to 638°C and 475°C to 635°C…. These tem- pearance of the flowing, falling aluminum…. peratures are well below those characteristic In the videos of the molten metal falling from of fully developed fires (c. 1,000°C)….1

But, as Dr. Steven Jones writes in Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse, this claim is unten- able due to the color of the molten metal:

Is the falling molten metal BEYOND MISINFORMATION BEYOND from WTC Tower 2…more Molten metal pouring out of WTC 2. 31 WTC 2 just prior to its collapse, the falling liquid NIST’s first approach was to omit the evidence of appears consistently orange, not just orange in molten metal from its final report. Then, in its Au- spots and certainly not silvery. We conclude from gust 2006 FAQs, it addressed that evidence with the all of these studies that the falling metal which following question and answer. poured out of WTC 2 is NOT aluminum. 13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider Nine years later, NIST still has not conducted its reports of molten steel in the wreckage from own experiments to verify its hypothesis, nor has the WTC towers? it revised its FAQs to account for the results of Dr. NIST investigators…found no evidence that Jones’ experiments. would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the Molten Metal in the Debris WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation Not only was molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2, of the collapse since it does not provide any dozens of eyewitnesses observed it in the debris of all conclusive information on the condition of the three buildings. A small selection is presented below: steel when the WTC towers were standing….

■■ Leslie Robertson, a lead engineer in the Under certain circumstances it is conceivable design of WTC 1 and WTC 2, told an audi- for some of the steel in the wreckage to have ence: “We were down at the B-1 level and melted after the buildings collapsed. Any mol- one of the firefighters said, ‘I think you’d be ten steel in the wreckage was more likely due interested in this.’ And they pulled up a big to the high temperature resulting from long block of concrete, and there was like a little exposure to combustion within the pile than to river of steel flowing.”2 short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing. ■■ FDNY Captain Philip Ruvolo recalled with other firefighters seated next to him: “You’d Each claim in NIST’s answer is demonstrably unsci- get down below and you’d see molten steel, entific: molten steel, running down the channel ■■ In the first sentence, NIST assumes that the rails, like you’re in a foundry, like lava.” only possible cause of “melting steel” would Other firefighters chimed in: “Like lava.” have been “the jet-fuel ignited fire in the 3 “Like lava from a volcano.” towers,” which is an implausible hypothesis on its face. ■■ Ken Holden, the Commissioner of the ■■ NIST’s next claim — “The condition of the NYC Department of steel in the wreckage…was irrelevant to the Design and Construc- investigation…since it does not provide any tion, testified before conclusive information on the condition of the the 9/11 Commission: steel when the WTC towers were standing” “Underground it was — flies in the face of forensic investigation still so hot that molten principles. Recall NFPA 921, which explicitly This photograph, taken by Frank Silecchia on metal dripped down the advises, “Indicators of exotic accelerants September 27, 2001, shows a piece of metal sides of the wall from include…melted steel or concrete.” Further- being dug up that is salmon-to-yellow color, indicating temperatures from 845°C (1,550°F) Building 6.”4 more, in science, evidence is not ignored to 1,040°C (1,900°F). on the basis that it is not conclusive by According to NIST, the highest temperature reached itself. NIST’s claim is yet more problematic by the fires was 1,100°C. Yet structural steel does because molten metal was observed pouring not begin to melt until about 1,482°C (2,700°F). How out of WTC 2 — “when the WTC towers then did NIST explain the evidence of molten metal? were standing” — as NIST documented ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ARCHITECTS extensively. 32 ■■NIST’s next claim the fires—no one knows from where—may is simply false. It is have combined with atoms in the steel to form impossible for a diffuse compounds that melt at lower temperatures.6 hydrocarbon fire to reach temperatures close to the The WPI professors, who were “shocked” by the “Swiss 7 1,482°C (2,700°F) required cheese appearance” of the steel, reported their anal- to melt steel, particularly ysis in Appendix C of the FEMA Building Performance in an oxygen-starved debris Study, making the following recommendation: The eroded, sulfidated steel from WTC 7 pile. at the scrapyard before it was cut off and The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion taken for testing. ■■Finally, with the of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. expression “Any molten No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur metal in the wreckage,” has been identified…. A detailed study into the NIST neither confirmed mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed….” nor denied the existence A simple explanation for the source of sulfur, as well of molten metal. In an as the high-temperature corrosion and erosion, is investigation that followed “thermate,” which is produced when sulfur is added NFPA 921, NIST would to thermite. In Revisiting 9/11—Applying the Scien- have sought to establish John Gross, who represented NIST on the tific Method, Dr. Steven Jones explains: FEMA Building Performance Study, poses whether molten metal was next to the eroded, sulfidated steel. NIST would later claim that no identifiable steel present and, if so, what its When you put sulfur into thermite it makes the was recovered from WTC 7, and John Gross source was. steel melt at a much lower temperature, so would deny the existence of molten metal. instead of melting at about 1,538°C it melts at However, outright denial approximately 988°C, and you get sulfidation and would be the approach used by NIST investigator oxidation in the attacked steel…. John Gross. In a talk at the University of Texas in October 2006, he responded to a question about the The thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is presence of molten metal with the following answer: in general faster than basic thermite in cutting through steel due to the presence of sulfur. First of all, let’s go back to your basic premise that there was a pool of molten steel. I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitness who has said How did NIST respond to FEMA’s so, nobody who’s produced it. I was on the site. recommendation? I was on the steel yards. So I don’t know that First, NIST ignored it — thus ignoring what the The that’s so. Steel melts at around 2,600°F. I think New York Times called “perhaps the deepest mys- it’s probably pretty difficult to get that kind of tery uncovered in the investigation.” temperatures in a fire.5 Second, NIST claimed that no identifiable steel was recovered from WTC 7, providing the following an- Sulfidated Steel in WTC 7 swer in its WTC 7 FAQs:

In a New York Times article published in February Once [debris] was removed from the scene, the 2002, James Glanz and Eric Lipton wrote: steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the which were painted red and contained distin- investigation involves extremely thin bits of guishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain steel collected…from 7 World Trade Center…. such identifying characteristics. The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot Third, when asked at NIST’s WTC 7 Technical Briefing enough to melt steel outright…. A preliminary on August 26, 2008, whether NIST had tested “any WTC analysis at Worcester Polytechnic Institute 7 debris for explosive or incendiary chemical residues,” BEYOND MISINFORMATION BEYOND [WPI]…suggests that sulfur released during NIST lead investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder replied: 33 [T]here is reference often made to a piece of peratures during the destruction of WTC 1 and WTC steel from Building 7…. But that piece of steel 2 — and possibly WTC 7. has been subsequently analyzed by Professor Barnett and by Professor Rick Sisson, who is also from [WPI]…and they reported in a BBC The RJ Lee Report interview that aired on July 6 [2008] that there Released in May 2004, the RJ Lee report titled was no evidence that any residue in that…piece WTC Dust Signature identified “[s]pherical iron and of steel had any relationship to an…incendiary spherical or vesicular silicate particles that result device in the building. from exposure to high temperature” in the dust.

Besides contradicting NIST’s position that no identi- An earlier 2003 version of RJ Lee’s report observed: fiable steel was recovered from WTC 7, Dr. Sunder’s response raises the question: Why did NIST not ask Various metals (most notably iron and lead) to study that piece of steel if they knew it existed? were melted during the WTC event, produc- Furthermore, why did NIST not perform experi- ing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of ments to verify the leading fire-based explanation phases to high heat results in the formation for the source of sulfur, which was the buildings’ of spherical particles due to surface tension…. Particles of materials that had been modified by gypsum wallboard? exposure to high temperature, such as spheri- Though NIST was not up to the task, a civil engi- cal particles of iron and silicates, are common neer named Jonathan Cole was. In his experiment in the WTC dust…but are not common in normal documented in the video 9/11 Experiments: The office dust. Mysterious Eutectic Steel, he used a wide flange The 2003 version also reported that while iron par- beam packed with crushed gypsum board, crushed ticles make up only 0.04 percent of normal building concrete, aluminum scraps, steel scraps, and diesel dust, they constituted 5.87 percent of the WTC dust. fuel, and he burned it for 24 hours, continually add- ing fuel such as brush, furniture, floor panels, and Iron does not melt until 1,538°C (2,800°F), which, wood logs. At the end of his experiment he reported: as discussed above, cannot be reached by diffuse hydrocarbon fires. Still, even higher temperatures The aluminum, concrete, drywall, diesel fuel, than 1,538°C were indicated by another discovery and building materials did not cause any in- documented in RJ Lee’s report: tergranular melting. So, if [these materials] did not cause the intergranular melting and The presence of lead oxide on the surface of sulfidation, then some uncommon substance mineral wool indicates the existence of ex- that is not normally found in buildings must tremely high temperatures during the collapse have caused it…. which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the min- There is a reason why NIST…never conducted eral wool. any experiments or found that source of sulfur in order to solve this deepest of mysteries. The 2003 version also referred to temperatures “at Perhaps NIST knew the most logical cause of which lead would have undergone vaporization.” For the sulfidation of the steel is from some type of such vaporization to occur, lead would need to have thermitic reaction…. been heated to its boiling point of 1,749°C (3,180°F).

Iron Spherules and The USGS Report Released in 2005, a report by the U.S. Geological Other Particles in the Survey (USGS) titled Particle Atlas of World Trade WTC Dust Center Dust identified “trace to minor amounts” of “metal or metal oxides” in the WTC dust and pre- Three scientific studies have documented evidence sented micrographs of these particles, two of which

ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ARCHITECTS in the WTC dust that indicates extremely high tem- were labeled “Iron-rich sphere.” 34 A scanning electron microscopy temperatures contained in the RJ Lee report (quot- image with EDS of an “iron-rich sphere” provided by USGS. ing from the RJ Lee report):

Some particles show evidence of being exposed to a conflagration such as spherical metals and silicates, and vesicular particles (round open porous structure having a Swiss cheese Steven Jones et al. appearance as a result of boiling and evapora- Published by Dr. Steven Jones and seven other sci- tion)…. These transformed materials include: entists in early 2008, the paper Extremely High Tem- spherical iron particles, spherical and vesicular peratures during the World Trade Center Destruction silicates, and vesicular carbonaceous particles. connected the dots between the earlier RJ Lee and Dr. Jones and his coauthors observed:

Table 6: Approximate Minimum Temperatures Required [I]f the “Swiss-cheese appearance” is indeed PROCESS AND MATERIAL °C °F the result of “boiling and evaporation” of the To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with ~50 Mol % sulfur) in steel 1,000 1,832 material as the [RJ Lee] report suggests, we note the boiling temperature for aluminosili- To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation) 1,450 2,652 cate is approximately 2,760°C. To melt iron (spherule formation) 1,538 2,800 To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation) 1,565 2,849 They then provided a table (see Table 6 at left) To vaporize lead 1,740 3,164 summarizing the temperatures needed to account To melt molybdenum (spherule formation) 2,623 4,753 for the various evidence of high temperatures in the To vaporize aluminosilicates 2,760 5,000 World Trade Center destruction, which they con- Reproduced from the paper Extremely High Temperatures during the trasted with the much lower maximum tempera- WTC Destruction. tures associated with the fires on September 11.

USGS reports. It also provided new observations The closest NIST has come to acknowledging the based on analysis of WTC dust samples obtained by evidence of extremely high temperatures in the Dr. Jones. According to the authors: WTC dust was in an email communication with an independent researcher following the release of The formation of spherules in the dust implies the NIST’s draft report on WTC 7. NIST replied to the generation of materials somehow sprayed into researcher’s inquiry with a single sentence: “The the air so that surface tension draws the molten NIST investigative team has not seen a coherent and droplets into near-spherical shapes. The shape is credible hypothesis for how iron-rich spheres could retained as the droplet solidifies in the air. be related to the collapse of WTC 7.”8

In addition to observing spherules of iron and sili- cates, their study discussed the presence of molyb- denum spherules documented by the USGS study Nano-thermite in the but not included in its report. (This additional data WTC Dust from the USGS study was obtained through a FOIA request.) Molybdenum is known for its extremely In April 2009 a group of scientists led by Dr. Niels high melting point of 2,623°C (4,754°F). Harrit, an expert in nano-chemistry who taught chemistry at the University of Copenhagen for over 40 years, published a paper in the Open Chemical A scanning electron Physics Journal titled Active Thermitic Materials microscopy image with EDS of vesicular alumino-silicate Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center provided by RJ Lee. Catastrophe. This paper, which reported the results of experiments conducted on small red-gray, bi-lay- ered chips found in multiple independent WTC dust samples, concluded that the chips were unreacted nano-thermite, a form of thermite with explosive BEYOND MISINFORMATION BEYOND Jones’ study also discussed evidence of even higher properties engineered at the nano-level. 35 According to their analyses, the gray sides of the What other explanations for this substance exist? chips consisted of “high iron and oxygen content including a smaller amount of carbon,” while the The first possibility is that the red-gray chips were red sides had various features indicative of thermite in fact paint chips. The researchers explored this and nano-thermite. possibility — first by soaking the chips in methyl ethyl ketone (a solvent known to dissolve paint chips, which did not succeed in dissolving the red- Features Indicative of Thermite gray chips), and second by exposing the red-gray ■■ The chips were composed primarily of “alu- chips and known paint chips to a hot flame. The minum, iron, oxygen, silicon, and carbon.” paint chips dissolved into ash, while the red-gray The first three elements are suggestive chips did not. of thermite, which is commonly made by combining aluminum and iron oxide. The second possibility is that the WTC dust might somehow have been contaminated with the red- ■■ Their red color and magnetic properties gray chips during the cleanup operation. However, were suggestive of iron. this hypothesis was ruled out on the basis that all four of the dust samples had been collected at times ■■ They all ignited between 415° and 435°C, or places that precluded any contamination. One producing highly energetic reactions. sample was collected about 20 minutes after the collapse of WTC 1. Of the other three samples, two were collected the next day. Features Indicative of Nano-thermite With those two possibilities ruled out, no other plau- ■■ The chips’ primary ingredients were ultra-fine sible explanation has been provided — nor has NIST grain, seen typically “in particles at the scale responded to the reported discovery of nano-ther- of tens to hundreds of nanometers.” mite in the WTC dust. ■■ The ultra-fine ingredients were intimately Therefore, the presence of unreacted nano-thermite mixed. in the WTC dust — which is corroborated by other ■■ When a flame was applied to them, it evidence of high-temperature chemical reactions — resulted in a “high-speed ejection of a hot constitutes compelling evidence that WTC 1, WTC 2, particle.” and WTC 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition using nano-thermite and possibly other explosive ■■ They ignited at a much lower and incendiary materials. temperature — 430°C — than the temperature at which conventional thermite ignites, NIST’s Refusal to Test which is above 900°C. for Explosives or ■■ Silicon was one of their Thermite Residues main ingredients, and it was porous, suggesting the thermitic Despite the compelling evidence for high-tempera- A backscattered electron image of a material was mixed in a sol-gel to red-gray chip. ture thermitic reactions examined above, NIST has form a porous reactive material. refused to test for explosives or thermite residues. NIST provides the following question and answer in ■■ Their carbon content was significant. The its FAQs on WTC 1 and WTC 2: authors noted that this “would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite produce high gas pressures upon ignition residues? and thus make them explosive.” NIST did not test for residues of these com- The presence of the above-described substance in the pounds in the steel…. Analysis of the WTC steel WTC dust strongly suggests that nano-thermite was for the elements in thermite/thermate would ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ARCHITECTS used in the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal 36 Table 7: How Researchers Have Accounted for the Evidence Showing the Occurrence of High-Temperature Chemical Reactions

NIST: FIRE-INDUCED FAILURE INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS: CONTROLLED DEMOLITION Molten Metal Pouring out of Document extensively. Without performing Acknowledge and interpret as evidence of a thermite WTC 2 experiments, claim that it was molten aluminum reaction. Conduct experiments that rule out NIST’s from the airplane mixed with organic materials. explanation.

Molten Metal in the Debris Neither confirm nor deny. Speculatively and Acknowledge and interpret as evidence of thermite erroneously suggest that steel could have melted reactions. in the rubble. Sulfidated Steel in WTC 7 Ignore FEMA’s recommendation for further study. Acknowledge and interpret as evidence of thermate reactions. Iron Spherules and Other Ignore completely. Acknowledge and interpret as evidence of extremely high Particles in the WTC Dust temperatures caused by thermite reactions. Nano-thermite in the WTC Dust Ignore completely. Acknowledge and interpret as evidence of the use of nano- thermite in the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

compounds also would have been present in The Appeal therefore argued: the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wall- [I]t is difficult to imagine a scenario in which a board that was prevalent in the interior partitions. test for explosive residues would not be conclu- sive…. Unless NIST can explain a plausible sce- But, to reiterate the point mentioned above, evidence nario that would produce inconclusive explosive is not ignored in science just because it is not conclu- residue test results, its stated reason for not sive. In fact, NIST conducted many tests during the conducting such tests is wholly unpersuasive. course of its investigation that were not conclusive (see Chapter 6). Given the evidence examined in this NIST ignored this point in its response to the Appeal chapter, some of which had already been discussed and provided no such scenario. widely during NIST’s investigation, NIST had every reason to conduct very simple lab tests for explosives and thermite residues, regardless of whether or not Conclusion such testing would have been conclusive. In this chapter we examined five areas of evidence Moreover, NIST’s answer actually implies that such showing the occurrence of high-temperature thermitic testing might have been conclusive. Indeed, a neg- reactions in the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC ative result would certainly be conclusive. A positive 7. Table 7 above presents each area of evidence and result could also have been conclusive. This argu- shows how researchers who support the competing ment was made in the Appeal of NIST’s response to hypotheses have accounted for this evidence. the Request for Correction filed in 2007, which quoted the following statement from Materials Engineering, We found that NIST provided woefully inadequate Inc.: and erroneous explanations for the molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2 and in the debris of all When thermite reaction compounds are used three buildings. Furthermore, NIST provided no to ignite a fire, they produce a characteristic explanation for the sulfidatation of steel in WTC 7 burn pattern, and leave behind evidence. The and no explanation for evidence of extremely high compounds are rather unique in their chemical temperatures in the WTC dust, except to deny that a composition…. While some of these elements coherent and credible hypothesis to explain it existed. are consumed in the fire, many are also left Finally, NIST has not commented on the discovery of behind in the residue…. The results [of Energy unreacted nano-thermite in the WTC dust. Dispersive Spectroscopy on minute traces of residue], coupled with visual evidence at the On the other hand — as with the structural behavior scene, provide absolute certainty that ther- of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 — the hypothesis of mite reaction compounds were present…. controlled demolition readily, simply, and completely explains all of the evidence showing the occurrence BEYOND MISINFORMATION BEYOND of high-temperature thermitic reactions. n 37 NIST investigator John Gross poses next to a piece of eroded, sulfidated steel from WTC 7 in October 2001.

6 NIST’s Evidence for Fire-Induced Failure

This chapter provides an overview of the analyses that NIST performed to support its hypothesis of fire-induced failure. The areas that will be examined include NIST’s analysis of “hypothetical blast scenarios” in WTC 7 and the possible use of thermite, NIST’s estimates of fireproofing dislodgement in WTC 1 and WTC 2, NIST’s testing of the steel temperatures, and NIST’s computer modeling.

In the last three chapters, we examined the evidence principle discussed in Chapter 1: “Unprecedented regarding the structural behavior of WTC 1, WTC 2, causes should not, without good reasons, be posited to and WTC 7 during their destruction, as well as evi- explain familiar occurrences…. [W]e properly assume, dence showing the occurrence of high-temperature unless there is extraordinary evidence to the contrary, thermitic reactions. We found consistently that NIST that each instance of a familiar occurrence was pro- either denied the evidence, ignored it, or provided duced by the same causal factors that brought about speculative explanations not based upon scientific the previous instances.” analysis. By contrast, the hypothesis of controlled demolition readily, simply, and completely explained Because NIST’s hypothesis involves an unprece- all of the evidence examined. dented cause to explain three instances of a familiar occurrence in one day, each of which exhibited near- In this final chapter, we will turn to evaluating the ly all of the features of the same causal factor that analyses that NIST performed to support its hypoth- brought about previous instances of that occurrence esis of fire-induced failure. To guide our evaluation — namely, the procedure known as “controlled ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ARCHITECTS of NIST’s analyses, we will bring back the scientific demolition” — the question we will ask is whether 38 NIST has provided “extraordinary evidence” to sup- a textbook example of straw man tactics, where an port its hypothesis. argument is constructed and then refuted to give the impression that an opponent’s argument has been defeated, when in fact the refuted argument is Hypothetical Blast not the opponent’s. Scenarios and Thermite Proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis Use have seldom, if ever, argued that a high explosive such as RDX was used to destroy WTC 7. Rather, as The only substantive analysis that NIST performed the evidence examined in Chapter 5 strongly sug- regarding the hypothesis of controlled demolition gests, the leading hypothesis is that an explosive was its consideration of “hypothetical blast sce- form of thermite called “nano-thermite” — possibly narios” for the destruction of WTC 7, carried out in combination with some form of explosives and under a contract with Applied Research Associates other incendiaries — was used to destroy WTC 7. beginning in August 2006. Using nano-thermite, instead of the more powerful RDX, would allow a perpetrator to demolish a build- NIST’s analysis started with identifying a hypothet- ing while concealing the fact that he had planted ical blast event involving explosives. the minimum amount of explosive material re- Even though NIST was fully aware of nano-thermite quired to fail Column 79. technology2 and it knew that the leading hypothe- It determined that to be sis of controlled demolition involved some form of a linear-shaped charge thermite, as evidenced by its FAQ (see below), it consisting of nine pounds selected a “straw man” substance — RDX — for its of RDX. From there, it hypothetical blast event. Thus, its analyses of the performed analyses to window breakage and noise associated with RDX assess how much window are irrelevant. breakage and noise would This video, which surfaced in 2008, clearly Furthermore, the evidence examined in Chapter 4 shows vertical sequences of explosions and result — and whether it window breakage as WTC 7 begins to collapse. was feasible for someone contradicts NIST’s claim that explosions were not It can be viewed at http://AE911Truth.org/ to plant such explosives observed by eyewitnesses or captured on video. downloads/video/WTC7-West.mp4 in the building. Indeed, explosions were observed by eyewitnesses and captured on video. As one person at the scene NIST concluded the following: recounted, “[I]t looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all ■■ [T]he minimum charge (lower bound) required busted out.” Video evidence also contradicts NIST’s to fail a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would claim that window breakage did not occur. In partic- have produced a pressure wave that would ular, a video that surfaced in 2008 clearly shows ver- have broken windows on the north and east tical sequences of explosions and window breakage faces of the building near Column 79. The on the north face of WTC 7 as it began to collapse.3 visual evidence did not show such breakage…. In suggesting that “[o]ccupants, support staff, and ■■ [T]he noise level at a distance of ½ mile would visitors would have noticed evidence of such ac- have been on the order of 130 dB to 140dB…. tivities [i.e., placing charges],” NIST also assumed People on the street would have heard 9 lb of that the planting of explosives would have happened RDX go off a mile away…. without the knowledge of someone responsible for ■■ Preparations for a blast scenario would have security at WTC 7. But proponents of the controlled been almost impossible to carry out on any demolition hypothesis have seldom suggested that floor in the building without detection….1 the planting of explosives could have been accom- plished without the knowledge and complicity of BEYOND MISINFORMATION BEYOND NIST’s analysis of “hypothetical blast scenarios” is someone in charge of security at WTC 7. 39 NIST’s analysis also assumed that Estimates of Fireproofing a demolition of Dislodgement WTC 7 would have been executed in The fire protection in WTC 1 and WTC 2 consisted the manner of a primarily of “sprayed fire-resistive material,” or SFRM. Some columns also had gypsum wallboard typical commer- enclosures, and some had a combination of both. cial controlled demolition. But A photograph of WTC trusses with fireproofing. NIST’s probable collapse sequence depends heavily according to upon the dislodgement of these materials by the researcher Jim Hoffman, “[E]xplosive devices could airplane impacts. In its final report on WTC 1 and have been disguised as or concealed within legiti- WTC 2, NIST concluded: mate equipment…. Numerous such possibilities are afforded by the properties of energetic materials.” In The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed fact, Hoffman argues, “Any such job would have been under the combined effects of aircraft impact far simpler than the structural retrofit of the CitiCorp damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires Tower” — a feat the owners successfully managed that were encountered on September 11, 2001, in 1978 without their tenants knowing about it, after if the thermal insulation had not been widely learning that the building was likely to topple in a dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged hurricane.4 by the aircraft impact.5

Yet NIST produced remarkably little evidence to Thermite Instead of Nano-Thermite support its claim that fireproofing dislodgement significantly affected the structures. NIST advanced a second straw man argument when it tackled the idea in both of its FAQ documents that Because such dislodgement would not have been thermite or thermate alone were used to destroy visible from outside the buildings, the extent of the buildings. NIST gave the following answer in dislodgement had to be estimated based on where response to the question of whether it tested the NIST’s aircraft impact simulations predicted dam- steel for residues of thermite: age to wall partitions or furnishings. At the very end of its investigation, NIST finally performed physical [Thermite] burns slowly relative to explosive testing “to provide evidence regarding the assump- materials…. 0.13 pounds of thermite would be tion that…the SFRM used for thermal insulation of required to heat each pound of a steel section structural members was damaged and dislodged.” to approximately 700 degrees Celsius…. [M]any This testing, contained in NIST’s “Debris Impact thousands of pounds of thermite would need Study,” involved shooting 15 rounds from a shotgun to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of at a flat steel plate and a metal bar coated with time…. This makes it an unlikely substance for fireproofing inside a plywood box. Referring to that achieving a controlled demolition. experiment, Kevin Ryan writes:

Once again, NIST constructed an easily refutable ar- [I]t’s not hard to see that these tests actually gument that is not the argument actually advanced disproved their findings.... Nearly 100,000 by proponents of the controlled demolition hypoth- blasts would have been needed based on NIST’s esis. It is well known that thermite and thermate own damage estimates, and these would have alone do not possess the explosiveness needed to to be directed in a very symmetrical fashion to account for a large amount of the evidence of explo- strip the columns and floors from all sides…. sions that NIST itself ignored (see Chapters 3 and 4). To put NIST’s pivotal claim to rest, there was Had it been NIST’s genuine intention “to determine simply no energy available to cause fireproofing whether explosives could have been used to cause loss. Previous calculations by engineers at MIT the collapse[s],” it would have tested the steel for had shown that all the kinetic energy from the ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ARCHITECTS explosives and thermite residues. aircraft was consumed in breaking columns, 40 crushing the floors and destroying the aircraft obtained similar results from the two core columns itself. But NIST’s tests indicate that 1 MJ of en- recovered from the fire-affected floors.8 NIST there- ergy was needed per square meter of surface fore conceded: area to sheer the fireproofing off…. [T]he extra energy needed would be several times more From the limited number of recovered structur- than the amount of kinetic energy available to al steel elements, no conclusive evidence was begin with.6 found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on Moreover, fireproofing dislodgement could not have the microstructure that would have resulted in contributed to the collapse of WTC 1, for it did not weakening of the steel structure.9 occur where the collapse initiated. As shown in th Chapter 3, the collapse of WTC 1 started at the 98 However, despite its initial declaration that the col- lected steel was “adequate for the purposes of the investigation,” NIST’s report downplays the results of its testing, frequently reminding the reader that the exterior columns it tested were only three per- cent of the exterior columns on the fire floors and thus “cannot be considered representative of other columns on these floors.”

A photograph from NIST’s “Debris Impact Study.” From a statistical perspective, though, 170 areas is not an insignificant sample size from which to ex- trapolate, particularly when “regions of impact and floor. Yet, according to NIST, no fireproofing was dis- lodged on any of the core columns on the 98th floor fire damage were emphasized” and less than two or on the floor trusses supporting the 99th floor. percent of the sample reached temperatures above 250°C — not to mention the temperatures of 600° and higher used in NIST’s computer model.

How Hot Did the Steel The aforementioned Request for Correction filed in Become? 2007 asked that NIST’s report “be revised to make its computer simulation conditions actually simu- Although nearly all of the WTC steel was destroyed late physical reality.” It noted: before it could be inspected,7 NIST was able to ob- tain “about 236 pieces of WTC steel,” as reported in NIST has provided no justification whatsoever its December 2003 Public Update. NIST explained for allowing its computer simulations to heat that “[r]egions of impact and fire damage were the steel to temperatures well above 600°C emphasized in the selection of the steel for the when its own physical tests reveal that little, if Investigation.” It then declared, “NIST believes that any, of the steel inside the WTC ever reached this collection of steel from the 600°C. WTC Towers is adequate for the purposes of the Investigation.” Yet NIST’s response to the Request for Correction completely ignored the 170 areas on the exterior Out of the more than 170 areas columns that NIST had tested. Instead, the re- that NIST tested on recovered ex- sponse focused solely on the two core columns terior columns, it found only three locations that bore evidence of that it had also tested, making the obvious claim the steel reaching temperatures that they were too small a sample size from which This photograph shows the mud to extrapolate. And it asserted the validity of its cracking of paint on the WTC above 250°C. NIST also found that steel after exposure to 250°C for the steel “show[ed] no evidence of fire modeling, which, however informative, tells us one hour. Only three out of 170 nothing conclusive about the temperatures that the tested areas on recovered exterior exposure to temperatures above BEYOND MISINFORMATION BEYOND columns reached 250°C. 600°C for any significant time.” It steel reached. 41 tember 11 was widely dislodged. But the authors of NIST’s Computer the Request for Correction rejected that claim for a Modeling number of reasons:

Because most of the WTC steel was destroyed before 1. What was the purpose of the testing if it was not it could be inspected, the NIST WTC investigation to analyze the thermal-structural response of had to rely almost entirely on computer modeling. the towers? The modeling performed by NIST failed — effective- ly disproving its hypothesis — in two ways:

1. It did not replicate the observed structural be- havior of the buildings, and

This illustration from the NIST report shows a floor truss 2. It required significant manipulation — in other sagging 42 inches. words, applying information known to be factu- ally unsupported — in order to achieve collapse initiation. 2. The tested floor assemblies actually had less fireproofing on them than the real WTC floor Each failing of NIST’s modeling will be discussed assemblies. below — first for WTC 1 and WTC 2, then for WTC 7. 3. NIST did not substantiate its claim that fire- proofing dislodgement significantly affected the Modeling of WTC 1 and WTC 2 structures, as discussed above. As discussed in Chapter 3, NIST provided no mod- eling to support its claim that the upper sections 4. The duration of the fires in the testing was much of WTC 1 and WTC 2 could accelerate through 92 longer than the duration of the fires in the areas stories and 76 stories, respectively, of intact struc- where NIST claimed the floors sagged. ture “essentially in free fall.” NIST later admitted, The second critical way in which NIST manipulated “[B]ecause of the magnitude of deflections and the its modeling of WTC 1 and WTC 2 was to artificially number of failures occurring, the computer models induce the inward bowing of exterior columns to are not able to converge on a solution…. [W]e were the point of buckling (which NIST claimed initiated unable to provide a full explanation of the total col- the collapses). Because NIST’s model showed that lapse.” NIST also refused to provide visualizations floor sagging did not cause the exterior columns to of its models showing collapse initiation.10 bow inward to the point of failing, NIST applied an Among the many ways in which NIST manipulated artificial lateral load of 5,000 pounds to each col- its modeling of WTC 1 and WTC 2, two are critical umn from outside the building in order to make the to NIST’s probable collapse sequence. First, the re- exterior columns fail. In a feat of circular logic, NIST sults of NIST’s physical testing on floor assemblies justified doing so in order to match the observed 13 subjected to fire conditions of 2,000°F showed that inward bowing. the floors sagged four inches after 60 minutes of exposure and six inches after 100 minutes of expo- Modeling of WTC 7 sure, which were the approximate durations of the fires in WTC 2 and WTC 1, respectively.11 However, As discussed in Chapter 4 of this booklet, NIST as- NIST’s modeling allowed for sagging of more than serted that the three stages of collapse progression 42 inches.12 it measured for WTC 7 were “consistent with the results of the global collapse analyses discussed In its response to the 2007 Request for Correction in Chapter 12 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9” — where NIST and in its FAQs, NIST claimed that the floor assem- presented the results of its computer model. bly testing was not intended to be relevant to its structural analysis: Only fireproofed floor assem- However, when we view the model,14 we see — be- ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ARCHITECTS blies were tested, whereas the fireproofing on Sep- sides the fact that it stops after only two seconds, 42 caused the shear studs connecting the floor beams and the slab to fail, which allowed the floor beams to move independently of the slab.

4. It ignored the fact that the floor beams could expand no more than 5 ¾ inches — less than Above: The final frame from three different computer simulations showing WTC 7’s the 6¼ inches required to push the girder off its collapse from the north, northwest, and south, respectively. seat — before shortening, caused by sagging, Below: The position of WTC 7 at zero, two seconds, and four seconds into its collapse, would overtake expansion. as seen from the northwest. NIST’s modeling stops after two seconds or less. Therefore, it cannot be fully compared to videos of WTC 7’s collapse. Nonetheless, we see that NIST’s computer modeling fails to show a period of free fall and inaccurately 5. It omitted web/flange stiffeners that would predicts large deformations that are not observed in the videos. have prevented the bottom flange of the girder from folding (even if the beams had somehow 1 15 expanded 6 /4 inches).

Had NIST modeled WTC 7 accurately, the mecha- nism that it claimed initiated the collapse would not have been feasible. which is well before the end of the collapse — that it fails to replicate the observed structural behavior in two important ways. First, it fails to show the 2.25 seconds of free fall that NIST finally acknowledged. Conclusion Second, it shows large deformations of the building’s In this final chapter we examined four areas of anal- exterior structure that are not observed in the videos. ysis that NIST performed to support its hypothesis of fire-induced failure. This illustration from the NIST report shows the mechanism that First, we found that NIST’s analysis of “hypothetical NIST claims initiated the collapse blast scenarios” and the possible use of thermite of WTC 7: Floor beams (green) thermally expanded and pushed were textbook examples of straw man tactics. We girder A2001 (blue) off of the then found that NIST provided remarkably little seat connecting it to Column 79 evidence to support its claim that fireproofing (purple). dislodgement significantly affected the structures. Next, we saw that, although NIST conceded that “no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that NIST also had to manipulate its modeling signifi- pre-collapse fires were severe enough to…have cantly just to get the collapse to initiate. Specifically resulted in weakening of the steel structure,” it — in order to make the floor beams under Floor ignored the results of its testing and instead contin- 13 expand and push the critical girder (A2001) off ued to use temperatures of 600°C and higher in its its seat and allegedly trigger a total collapse of the models. As for NIST’s computer modeling, we found building — NIST took the following steps: that it failed to replicate the observed structural 1. It ignored the fact that the fire in the northeast behavior of the buildings and it required significant section of Floor 12 had burned out over an hour manipulation in order to achieve collapse initiation. before it supposedly caused the beams under Floor 13 to expand. Did NIST provide “extraordinary 2. It omitted shear studs on girder A2001 that evidence” to support its hypothesis? would have prevented the girder from being The answer is “no.” NIST fell far short of providing pushed off its seat. extraordinary evidence — not for lack of trying or lack of resources or lack of expertise, but because 3. It inexplicably heated the floor beams but not there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of the floor slab above them, thus causing the fire-induced failure. n floor beams, but not the slab, to expand. This BEYOND MISINFORMATION BEYOND

43 Thomas Turilli, FDNY hell. We made it around the corner and that’s Appendix A: “The door closed, they went up, and it just when the shit hit the fan right then and there. seemed a couple seconds and all of a sudden We heard that loud and then ba boom. I just Eyewitness you just heard like it almost actually that day — it was like an earthquake or whatever. A sounded like bombs going off, like boom, giant. giant explosion...Then this big gust boom, boom, like seven or eight, and then just came and I just went flying, maybe 30, 40 feet. Accounts of a huge wind...” Tumbling. I got up, got on my hands and knees because all of the white shit was all over me. Explosions Louie Cacchioli, Louie, FDNY I just kept crawling. My ears were like deaf, you know, when you hear a giant firecracker “We were the first ones in the second tower or something.” after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip Julio Marrero, FDNY up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs “...I heard a loud bang. We looked up, and Identification set in the building.” we just saw the building starting to collapse. I looked over and started to scream at my Michael Donovan, FDNY T. Inman, PAPD (Port Authority Police Dept.) partner, which he was inside the vehicle...I “I got up, I got into the parking garages, was “As a roll call was being taken of the respond- was screaming from the top of my lungs, and I knocked down by the percussion. I thought ing Detectives, Tower #2 began to collapse. must have been about ten feet away from her there had been an explosion or a bomb that This occurred after a secondary explosion and she couldn’t even hear me, because the they had blown up there.” on the west side of the tower that appeared building was so loud, the explosion, that she to take place in the area of the high 60’s. The couldn’t even hear me.” James Duffy, FDNY area above the secondary explosion actually leaned to the west and then the collapse took Edward Martinez, FDNY Q. “When either tower came down, did you place.” “...I heard like a big explosion, a tremendous have any advanced warning?” explosion, let me put it that way and rumbling A. “Oh, no. I didn’t know what it was when we sound. At that time I started seeing things were inside. I didn’t know the building had coming down...” collapsed, actually. I thought it was a bomb. I Power thought a bomb had gone off.” Keith Murphy, FDNY Frank Campagna, FDNY “I had heard right before the lights went Julio Marrero, FDNY “That’s when it went. I looked back. You see out, I had heard a distant boom boom boom, three explosions and then the whole thing “That’s when I just broke down and cried at sounded like three explosions. I don’t know coming down. I turned my head and everybody Bellevue Hospital, because it was just so over- what it was. At the time, I would have said they was scattering.” whelming. I just knew that what happened sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom was horrific. It was a bombing.” boom and then the lights all go out...I would Roy Chelsen, FDNY say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this Timothy Hoppey, FDNY “All of a sudden we heard this huge explosion, tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a and that’s when the tower started coming “...that’s when we heard the rumble. I looked tunnel with the train coming at you. It sounded down.” like nothing I had ever heard in my life, but it up, and it was just a black cloud directly didn’t sound good. All of a sudden I could feel overhead. At that point I was thinking it was a Paul Curran, FDNY the floor started to shake and sway. We were secondary explosion.” “With that, all a sudden the tower went com- being thrown like literally off our feet, side to pletely — a horrendous noise, a very, very side, getting banged around and then a tre- John Malley, FDNY tremendous explosion, and a very heavy wind mendous wind started to happen. It probably “As we walked through those revolving doors, came through the tower. The wind almost lasted maybe 15 seconds, 10 to 15 seconds. It that’s when we felt the rumble. I felt the rum- knocked you down.” seemed like a hurricane force wind. It would bling, and then I felt the force coming at me. blow you off your feet...” I was like, what the hell is that? In my mind Gary Gates, FDNY it was a bomb going off. The pressure got so “I looked up, and the building exploded, the John Murray, FDNY great, I stepped back behind the columns building that we were very close to, which “...we were standing there watching the north separating the revolving doors. Then the force was one tower. The whole top came off like a tower and not even paying attention to the just blew past me.” volcano.” south tower. Then you look up and it’s like holy shit, the building didn’t come down, it William Reynolds, FDNY Jerry Gombo, FDNY shot straight out over our heads, like straight “After a while, and I don’t know how long it “...it felt sort of like an earthquake. The sky across West Street. Holy shit, there is no fuck- was, I was distracted by a large explosion from darkened and you heard this thunderous roar. ing way we are going to out run this thing.” the south tower and it seemed like fire was It was like a volcano, if you will, not that I ever shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each experienced a volcano, but I guess that’s the Richard Smiouskas, FDNY direction, then all of a sudden the top of the way I could describe it, and this cloud just “All of a sudden there was this groaning tower started coming down in a pancake...” coming down. The ground was shaking and sound like a roar, grrrr. The ground started Q. “Bill, just one question. The fire that you this roar...” to shake....It looked like an earthquake. The saw, where was the fire? Like up at the upper ground was shaking. I fell to the floor. My levels where it started collapsing?” Edward Kennedy, FDNY camera bag opened up. The cameras went skidding across the floor. The windows started A. “It appeared somewhere below that. Maybe “We took two steps, there was a tremendous boom, explosion, we both turned around, and exploding in...I didn’t know exactly what was twenty floors below the impact area of the the top of the building was coming down at us. going on outside. I’m thinking maybe the plane...” With this I just turned to Richie and said run.” building snapped in half. I’m thinking maybe a Q. “You’re talking about the north tower now; bomb blew up. I’m thinking it could have been right?” George Kozlowski, FDNY a nuclear.” A. “Before the north tower fell. He said,’No.’ I “As we were walking, we heard — we thought said, ‘Why not? They blew up the other one.’ I it was another plane coming. It was like a big C. Krueger, PAPD thought they blew it up with a bomb. I said, ‘If shhhhh. A thousand times louder than that. “While searching the floor there was a tre-

ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ARCHITECTS they blew up the one, you know they’re gonna It sounded like a missile coming and we just mendous explosion knocking me off my feet blow up the other one.’” started booking. We took off like bats out of onto the floor, I was covered with debris…” 44 T. Marten, PAPD Karin Deshore, FDNY Daniel Rivera, FDNY “Then I heard a tremendous explosion and I “Somewhere around the middle of the World “Then that’s when I kept on walking close to looked up and saw Building Two snap at the Trade Center, there was this orange and red the south tower and that’s when that building top and collapse into it self.” flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. collapsed.” Then this flash just kept popping all the way Q. “How did you know that it was coming Pt. Middleton, PAPD around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and down?” “I was approximately one block away from with each popping sound it was initially an A. “That noise. It was a noise.” Tower One when Tower Two appeared to orange and then red flash came out of the explode at the roof top and several floors Q. “What did you hear? What did you see?” building and then it would just go all around below. Then fire balls and debris shot out of the building on both sides as far as I could A. “It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it the windows and rocketed into the skies and see. These popping sounds and the explosions was—do you ever see professional demolition fall [fell?] below. As the Building began to were getting bigger, going both up and down where they set the charges on certain floors disintegrate before your very eyes, there came and then all around the building. and then you hear ‘pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’? an earth-shaking roar which grew louder and That’s exactly what—because I thought it was louder. Then all of a sudden a huge gigantic Brian Dixon, FDNY that. When I heard that frigging noise, that’s billing [billowing?] cloud filled with smoke, when I saw the building coming down.” and ash. Pieces of cement particles and sec- “I was watching the fire, watching the people jump and hearing a noise and looking up and tions of the building came raining down...As Kenneth Rogers, FDNY the ash and cement particles began to build seeing — it actually looked — the lowest floor up under the vehicle it became pitch black out of fire in the south tower actually looked like “...we were standing there with about five and suddenly the oxygen left the air and an someone had planted explosives around it be- companies and we were just waiting for our intense heat was felt.” cause the whole bottom I could see — I could assignment and then there was an explosion see two sides of it and the other side — it just in the south tower, which according to this looked like that floor blew out. Patty Sabga, Journalist, CNN map, this exposure just blew out in flames. A lot of guys left at that point. I kept watching. Aaron Brown: “Patty, are you there?” Thomas Fiztpatrick, FDNY Floor after floor after floor. One floor under Patty Sabga: “Yes, I’m here.” “All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from another after another and when it hit about Aaron Brown: “Whaddya got?” about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because Patty Sabga: “About an hour ago I was on the thought it was an explosion. I don’t think I it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of corner of Broadway and Park Place—that’s remember that. I remember seeing, it looked thing.” about a thousand yards from the World Trade like sparkling around one specific layer of the Center—when the first Tower collapsed. It building. I assume now that that was either Pt. Middleton, PAPD was a massive explosion...When that explosion windows starting to collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come “As I continued to wave them back periodically occurred it was like a scene out of a horror down. My initial reaction was that this was you would hear a loud boom go off at the top film...” exactly the way it looks when they show you of tower one...After approximately 15 minuets those implosions on TV.” [minutes] suddenly there was another loud Teresa Veliz, civilan boom at the upper floors, then there was a “BOOM! The glass doors at the top of the es- Christopher Fenyo, FDNY series of smaller explosions which appeared calator shattered. I thought it was a bomb. But to go completely around the building at the up- “About a couple minutes after George came then a huge wind, with the force of a hurricane, per floors. And another loud earth shattering back to me is when the south tower from our swept across us. I don’t know what happened perspective exploded from about midway up blast with a large fire ball which blew out more to the people standing in front of us, but I think the building. We all turned and ran... [p. 5]...At debris and at that point everyone began to run they were blown away.” that point a debate began to rage because the north on West Broad street. As the building perception was that the building looked like it began to crumble...we were over taken by had been taken out with charges.” another huge cloud of dust...” Pattern Stephen Gregory, FDNY John Bussey, Wall Street Journal Richard Banaciski, FDNY I thought that when I looked in the direction “Unknown to the dozens of firefighters on the street, and those of us still in offices in the “We were there I don’t know, maybe 10, 15 of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level neighborhood, the South Tower was weaken- minutes and then I just remember there was flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant ing structurally. Off the phone, and collecting just an explosion. It seemed like on television Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he they blow up these buildings. It seemed like my thoughts for the next report, I heard met- questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level it was going all the way around like a belt, all alic crashes and looked up out of the office flashes in front of the building, and I agreed these explosions... window to see what seemed like perfectly syn- with him because I thought — at that time I chronized explosions coming from each floor, didn’t know what it was. I mean, it could have Edward Cachia, FDNY spewing glass and metal outward. One after been as a result of the building collapsing, the other, from top to bottom, with a fraction “As my officer and I were looking at the things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash of a second between, the floors blew to pieces. south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a and then it looked like the building came It was the building apparently collapsing in on lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, down.” itself, pancaking to the earth.” because we originally had thought there was Q. “Was that on the lower level of the building like an internal detonation explosives because or up where the fire was?” Ross Milanytch, employee, Chase Manhattan it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.” A. “No, the lower level of the building. You Bank know like when they demolish a building, how “It started exploding...It was about the 70th when they blow up a building, when it falls Frank Cruthers, FDNY floor. And each second another floor exploded down? That’s what I thought I saw. And I didn’t out for about eight floors, before the cloud “And while I was still in that immediate area, broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He obscured it all.” the south tower, 2 World Trade Center, there said I don’t know if I’m crazy, but I just wanted was what appeared to be at first an explosion. to ask you because you were standing right It appeared at the very top, simultaneously next to me. He said did you see anything by from all four sides, materials shot out the building? And I said what do you mean by A full compilation of the 156 eyewitness ac- horizontally. And then there seemed to be a see anything? He said did you see any flashes? counts identified by Dr. Graeme MacQueen can be viewed at http://AE911Truth.org/down- BEYOND MISINFORMATION BEYOND momentary delay before you could see the I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He beginning of the collapse.” said no, I saw them, too.” loads/156eyewitnessaccounts.pdf. 45 Frank Conguista, FDNY Jane Standley, BBC News Appendix B: While we were searching the subbasements, 5:08 PM: Well, really only what you already they decided that 7 World Trade Center…was know. (Behind Standley the building is still Accounts going to collapse. standing. At 5:09 PM the caption on the bottom of the screen read: “The 47-storey Salomon Indicating David Moriarty, FDNY Brothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed. ”) Foreknowledge Then I remember seeing like a few different chiefs at the corner throughout the day. They Ashleigh Banfield, MSNBC became very concerned about the condition of of WTC 7’s Seven World Trade and where we were in vicin- Time unknown: The tall one is number 7 World ity to that. They kept announcing the collapse Trade Center. I’ve heard several reports from and who’s moving, and we got pushed further several different officers now that that is the Destruction building that is gonna go down next. In fact, and further west. one officer told me they’re just waiting for that to come down at this point…. Oh my god…. This Early Predictions Vincent Mazza, FDNY is it. Later on in the day as we were waiting for Banfield, after the collapse, exact time un- seven to come down, they kept backing us Michael Currid, FDNY* known: We had been warned. They were just up Vesey, almost like a full block. They were waiting for this one to come down…. We’d been Someone from the Office of Emergency concerned about seven coming down, and cleared five different times northward from Management told us that this building was in they kept changing us, establishing a collapse Ground Zero. serious danger of collapse…. Rich, a few other zone and backing us up. people and I went inside to the stairwells and Brian Williams, MSNBC started yelling up, “Drop everything and get Decosta Wright, FDNY EMT out!” Minutes after the collapse: What we’ve been [B]asically they measured out how far the fearing all afternoon has apparently happened. Dean E. Murphy, Editor, “September 11: An building was going to come, so we knew We were watching number 7 World Trade…. Oral History,” 2002, pp. 175-176. exactly where we could stand…. Five blocks This was a 40-story building they’d been away…. Exactly right on point, the cloud just watching all day…. We are on the phone with NIST NCSTAR 1-8 stopped right there. New York Fire Department David Rastuccio…. At approximately 11:30 AM, FDNY assigned a Can you confirm it was number 7 that just went Chief Officer to take charge of operations at Joseph Fortis, FDNY in?... And you guys knew this was coming all WTC 7…. When the Chief Officer in charge of day? They pulled us all back at the time, almost WTC 7 got to Barclay Street and West Broad- about an hour before it, because they were way, numerous firefighters and officers were sure – they knew it was going to come down, coming out of WTC 7. These firefighters indi- but they weren’t sure. So they pulled everyone Planning or Consideration cated that several blocks needed to be cleared back, and everybody stood there and we ac- around WTC 7 because they thought that the tually just waited and just waited and waited David Rastuccio, FDNY, interviewed by Brian building was going to collapse. until it went down, because it was unsafe. Williams, MSNBC They wouldn’t let anyone next to I guess the We had heard reports that the building was Chief Peter Hayden, FDNY, BBC Conspiracy two piles, we would call them, where one and unstable and that eventually it would come Files: 9/11 – The Third Tower two was. We stood back. We waited. down on its own or it would be taken down. Narrator: Just after midday, firefighters were watching Tower 7 nervously. The Deputy Chief Indira Singh, EMT, on Guns and Butter Radio of the New York Fire Department that day Media Reports By noon or one o’clock, they told us we had to [Peter Hayden] remembers the scene.... “[W] move from that triage site…because Building e had a discussion with one particular engi- Aaron Brown, CNN 7 was going to come down or being brought neer there, and we asked him, if we allowed down. it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and 4:10 PM (1 hour and 10 minutes prior to the [Interviewer: Did they actually use the word if so, how soon? And it turned out that he was collapse): We are getting information now that “brought down” and who was it that was tell- pretty much right on the money. He said, ‘In one of the other buildings, Building 7 in the ing you that?] The fire department…and they its current state you have about five hours.’” World Trade Center complex is on fire and has did use the word “we’re going to have to bring either collapsed or is collapsing…. Now we are it down.” told that there is a fire there and that building Establishing a Safety Zone may collapse as well, as you can see. Jeffrey Shapiro, FOXNews.com and Waiting Phil Hayton, BBC News Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told Captain Ray Goldback, FDNY 4:57 PM (23 minutes prior to the collapse): me that Larry Silverstein…was on the phone There was a big discussion going…about pull- We’ve got some news just coming in actually with his insurance carrier to see if they would ing all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. that the Salomon Brothers building in New authorize the controlled demolition of the Chief Nigro didn’t feel it was worth taking the York right in the heart of Manhattan has also building — since its foundation was already slightest chance of somebody else getting collapsed. unstable and expected to fall. injured. So at that point we made a decision Hayton, 5:00 PM: The 47-story Salomon to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Brothers’, situated very close to the World Larry Silverstein, WTC Leaseholder, on PBS Center because there was a potential for col- Trade Center, has also just collapsed. I remember getting a call from the fire depart- lapse…. Made the decision to back everybody Hayton, 5:07 PM: Now more on the latest ment commander telling me that they were away, took all the units and moved them all building collapse in New York. You might have not sure they were gonna be able to contain the way back toward North End Avenue, which heard just a few moments ago I was talking the fire. I said, “You know we’ve had such a is as far I guess west as you could get on Vesey about the Salomon Brothers building [WTC 7] terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision Street, to keep them out of the way. collapsing. And indeed it has…. And it seems to pull and we watched the building collapse. that this was not a result of a new attack. It Frank Fellini, FDNY was because the building had been weakened For the next five or six hours we kept fire- during this morning’s attacks…. Jane, what *All accounts from FDNY personnel are from the fighters from working anywhere near that more can you tell us about the Salomon FDNY World Trade Center Task Force Interviews ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ARCHITECTS building…. Brothers building and its collapse? unless otherwise noted. 46

University of Texas, Austin. https://youtu.be/ Endnotes wcqf5tL887o. 17. NIST: NCSTAR 1, p. 146. 8. NIST: NCSTAR 1, pp. 34, 48. 9. Chandler, David: “The Destruction of the World Chapter 4 Introduction Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (February 2010). 1. NIST: NCSTAR 1A, p. 48. 1. Public opinion polls by Scripps Survey Research 10. Szamboti, Anthony and Johns, Richard: “ASCE 2. NIST: NCSTAR 1A Draft Report, p. 40. The term Center, Angus Reid, and YouGov have found 63 to Journals Refuse to Correct Fraudulent Paper “descent speed” was an error made by NIST. 77 percent of Americans believe the destruction of Published on WTC Collapses,” Journal of 9/11 “Acceleration” was meant. WTC 1 and WTC 2 was caused by airplane impacts Studies (September 2014). and fires. http://www.aei.org/wp-content/up- 3. This condensed description of the three stages loads/2013/11/-public-opinion-on-conspiracy-the- 11. The 33Mkg mass is the estimated mass of the of WTC 7’s collapse appears in NIST’s WTC 7 FAQs. upper section of WTC 1 based on data provided by ories_181649218739.pdf and http://rethink911.org/ 4. https://youtu.be/xpoAmEGdsn4. NIST. The 54Mkg mass is Bazant and Le’s incorrect docs/ReThink911_YouGov_Poll_Results_Summary. 5. http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/ pdf. estimate of the upper section’s mass, though it still yields observable decelerations when the wtc7_med2.wma. 2. The above-referenced public opinion polls values for the resistance of the columns and the 6. https://youtu.be/b4z-Wrp1pY8. found 13 to 16 percent of Americans believe the lower section’s floor mass are corrected. destruction of WTC 1 and WTC 2 was caused by 7. Hess: https://youtu.be/6e3K9jcPdXc; Jennings: controlled demolition. 12. https://youtu.be/CcvvhVv-cAE. https://youtu.be/gwJi0R2jza4. 3. As of the publication of this booklet, 2,353 13. The calculation of the energy required to pul- 8. Griffin, pp. 84–111. verize the concrete and dismember the structures verified architects and engineers have signed the 9. https://youtu.be/cU_43SwWD9A. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition of WTC 1 and WTC 2, and the gravitational potential calling for a new investigation into the destruction energy contained in each building, is based upon of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. the following calculations and assumptions: Chapter 5 Gravitational Potential Energy Contained in Each Building (i.e. Total Building Mass): 2.765 1. NIST: NCSTAR 1-5A, pp. 374–376. mega kilograms [single floor mass of upper 12 Chapter 1 2. https://youtu.be/lDnbfXLUyI4. floors (see Some Misunderstandings Related to 1. Griffin, David Ray: The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Collapse Analysis)], which equates to 2.765 3. https://youtu.be/nsw2j-3MCMg. World Trade Center 7 (2009), p. 23. x 106 joules x 105 [number of floors (5 floors are 4. https://youtu.be/KtyrMt7GzyE. subtracted from 110 floors to account for 5-story 2. NIST: Analysis of Needs and Existing Capabilities 5. https://youtu.be/wcqf5tL887o. for Full-Scale Fire Resistance Testing (October debris pile)] x 1.05 [to account for increasing mass 6. Glanz, James and Lipton, Eric: “A Search for 2008). of lower floors due to increasing thickness of columns] x 9.81 [gravitational constant] x 170 [the Clues in the Towers’ Collapse,” The New York Times distance in meters to the center of gravity of the (February 2, 2002). Chapter 2 building above the 5th floor] = 508.4 x 109 joules of 7. Killough-Miller, Joan: “The Deep Mystery of gravitational potential energy. Melted Steel,” WPI Transformations (Spring 2002). 1. Griffin, p. 20. Energy Required to Pulverize Concrete: Estimates 8. Griffin, pp. 43, 282. Griffin describes an email 2. Glanz, James and Lipton, Eric: City in the Sky: vary based on kind of concrete, assumed ratio of exchange between researcher Shane Geiger and The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center (2003), loading area to slab area, and assumed size of NIST public affairs officer Gail Porter, which Geiger p. 330. dust particles generated. Based upon scenarios shared with Griffin. detailed in a 2012 publication “Energy absorption 3. Ibid., pp. 330–332. potential of light weight concrete floors, Can J of 4. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Civ Eng pp. 1193-1201, authored by R. M. Korol Chapter 6 Science: Hearing: The Investigation of the World and K.S. Sivakumaran,” an estimate of 857.5 x 109 Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, joules is obtained. 1. NIST: NCSTAR 1-9, p. 357. and Next Steps (May 1, 2002), p. 27. Energy Required to Destroy Perimeter Columns: 2. Ryan, Kevin: “The Top Ten Connections Between 5. At the 2015 Annual Business Meeting of the 120 [number of perimeter columns assumed to NIST and Nano-Thermites,” Journal of 9/11 Studies American Institute of Architects (AIA), during fail by mid-height hinge plastic bending] x 9.11 x (July 2008). debate on a proposed resolution calling for the 106 joules [energy required to cause mid-height 3. http://AE911Truth.org/downloads/video/ AIA to officially support a new investigation of the hinge plastic bending] x 105 [number of floors] + WTC7-West.mp4. collapse of WTC 7, Anthony Schirripa, FAIA, former 120 [number of perimeter columns assumed to president of the New York AIA Chapter, stated: fail by crushing] x 8.348 x 106 [energy required to 4. Hoffman, Jim: Frequently Asked Questions: “[WTC 7] collapsed because of a raging fire caused cause crushing] x 105 [number of floors] = 219 Controlled Demolition. http://911research.wtc7.net/ by 6,000-plus gallons of diesel fuel that fed the x 109 joules. The energy values noted above are faq/demolition.html. New York City Emergency Response Center. You based on two publications by Korol and Sivaku- 5. NIST: NCSTAR 1, p. xxxviii. need to admit that to yourselves.” maran: “Reassessing the Plastic Hinge Model for Energy Dissipation of Axially Loaded Columns (J of 6. Ryan, Kevin: “What is 9/11 Truth? – The First 6. At the above-referenced 2015 AIA Annual Steps,” The Journal of 9/11 Studies (August 2006). Business Meeting, Donald King, FAIA, a member Structures, 2014, 7 pages) and “Energy Dissipation of the AIA Strategic Council, stated: “The collapse Potential of Square Tubular Steel Columns 7. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on of that building, according to the report, was Subjected to Axial Compression (Inter. Review of Science. caused by massive, intensive fire and the collision Civ. Eng., 2011, pp. 46-51). 8. NIST: NCSTAR 1-3, p. xli. of debris from the collapse of World Trade Center Energy Required to Destroy Core Columns: 47 9. NIST: NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235. Building, or Tower 1…. It was extreme fire and [number of core columns, all assumed to fail by structural damage that caused the collapse.” mid-height hinge plastic bending] x 36,070 joules 10. Parker, David: “WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualization,” New Civil Engineer (October 7. Ibid. [energy required to cause mid-height hinge plastic bending] x 105 [number of floors] = 178 x 109 6, 2005). joules. 11. NIST: NCSTAR 1-6B, Chapters 4 and 5. Note: Chapter 3 Total Energy Required to Pulverize the Concrete NIST’s floor assembly tests were conducted on and Dismember the Steel Structures (i.e. the sum half-size trusses. 1. Griffin, p. 17. of the three previous calculations): (857.5 + 219 12. NIST: NCSTAR 1-6, p. 86. 9 9 2. Hart, F.; Henn, Walter; and Sontag, H.: + 178) x 10 joules = 1,254.5 x 10 joules, or 1,255 13. NIST: NCSTAR 1-6D, pp. 180, 181, and Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel (1978). gigajoules. Appendix A. 3. NIST: NCSTAR 1-6, pp. 156, 169. 14. Jones, Steven (et al.): “Extremely High Tem- 14. http://wtcdata.nist.gov/gallery2/v/NIST+Ma- peratures during the World Trade Center Destruc- terials+and+Data/Computer+Simulations/ 4. Ryan, Kevin: A New Standard for Deception video tion,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (February 2008). (June 2006). https://youtu.be/OuGI82tOhEI. WTC7_Structural+Response. 15. Ryan, Kevin: “High Velocity Bursts of Debris 15. NIST public affairs officer Michael Newman 5. NIST: Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC from Point-Like Sources in the WTC Towers,” Towers Investigation, Question #11. confirmed in email correspondence with Journal of 9/11 Studies (June 2007). researcher David Cole on October 25, 2013, that 6. NIST: NCSTAR 1, p. 146.

BEYOND MISINFORMATION BEYOND 16. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/ the web/flange stiffeners on girder A2001 were 7. Gross, John: October 2006 lecture at the videos/docs/wtc1_jets.mpeg. omitted from NIST’s computer model of WTC 7. 47 References

Bazant, Zdenek and Le, Jia-Liang: “Why the Observed Motion History NIST: From NIST: Response to the Request for Correction (September of the World Trade Center Towers is Smooth”: Journal of Engineering 2007) Mechanics (January 2011) NIST: To NIST: Appeal from James R. Gourley, Bob McIlvaine, Steven Chandler, David: NIST Finally Admits Free Fall video (February 2010) Jones to NIST’s Response to the Request for Correction (October 2007) Chandler, David: North Tower Exploding video (February 2010) NIST: Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC Towers Investigation (NIST FAQs for WTC 1 & WTC 2: updated September 19, 2011) Chandler, David: Sound Evidence for Explosions video (July 2010) NIST: Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (NIST Chandler, David: “The Destruction of the World Trade Center North FAQs for WTC 7: updated June 27, 2012) Tower and Fundamental Physics,” Journal of 9/11 Studies, (February 2010) NIST: WTC 7 Technical Briefing (August 26, 2008) Chandler, David: “Free Fall and Building 7 on 9/11” (Reprinted by NIST: Analysis of Needs and Existing Capabilities for Full-Scale Fire AE911Truth in April 2014) Resistance Testing (October 2008) Cole, Jonathan: 9/11 Experiments: The Mysterious Eutectic Ryan, Kevin: “High Velocity Bursts of Debris from Point-Like Sources in Steel video (July 2010) the WTC Towers,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (June 13, 2007) FEMA: World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Szamboti, Anthony and Johns, Richard: “ASCE Journals Refuse to Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations (May 2002) Correct Fraudulent Paper Published on WTC Collapses,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (September 2014) Fire Department of New York (FDNY): “World Trade Center Task Force Interviews,” The New York Times (October 2001 – January 2002) Szamboti, Anthony and MacQueen, Graeme: “The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis,” Journal of Griffin, David Ray: The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7 9/11 Studies (April 2009) (2009) Szuladziński, Gregory and Szamboti, Anthony and Johns, Harrit, Niels (et al.): “Active Thermitic Materials Discovered in Dust Richard: “Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Open Chemical Physics Analysis,” International Journal of Protective Structures (June 2013) Journal (April 2009) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS): “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Jones, Steven (et al.): “Extremely High Temperatures during the World Dust” by Heather A. Lowers and Gregory P. Meeker (2005) Trade Center Destruction,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (February 2008) Jones, Steven: “Revisiting 9/11/2001 — Applying the Scientific Method,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (May 2007) Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is heavily indebted to David Chandler, James Gourley, Dr. David Ray Griffin, Dr. Niels Harrit, Dr. Jones, Steven: “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse Steven Jones, Dr. Graeme MacQueen, Kevin Ryan, Anthony Szamboti, Completely?” Journal of 9/11 Studies (September 2006) and many other researchers whose contributions have brought us Legge, Frank and Szamboti, Anthony: “9/11 and the Twin Towers: so much closer to understanding what happened in New York City on Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible,” Journal of 9/11 Studies September 11, 2001. (December 2007) Lee, Richard J.: RJ Lee Group, Inc., WTC Dust Signature (May 2004) MacQueen, Graeme: “Eyewitness Evidence of Explosions in the Twin Towers,” Chapter Eight, The 9/11 Toronto Report, Editor: James Gourley (November 2012) MacQueen, Graeme: “118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (2006) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA): NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations (Current edition: 2014) NFPA Report: High-Rise Building Fires by John R. Hall, Jr. (September 2013) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): National Institute of Standards and Technology Final Plan: National Building Fire Safety Investment of the World Trade Center by Sivaraj Shyam-Sunder (August 2002) NIST: June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (WTC 1 & WTC 2) NIST: Draft Reports from the NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation (WTC 1 & WTC 2 in April 2005; WTC 7 in August 2008) NIST: Final Reports from the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (WTC 1 & WTC 2 in September 2005; WTC 7 in November 2008) NIST: To NIST: Request for Correction from Bob McIlvaine, Bill Doyle, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, Frank Legge (April 2007) ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ARCHITECTS

48 About Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to researching and disseminating scientific information about the destruc- tion of the World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11, 2001.

As of the printing of Beyond Misinformation: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7, AE911Truth represents 2,353 verified architects and engineers — and counting — who have signed our petition calling upon the U.S. Congress to open a truly independent investigation into the World Trade Center destruction.

To learn more about AE911Truth and sign our petition, visit AE911Truth.org. BEYOND MISINFORMATION BEYOND

49 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth 2342 Shattuck Avenue Suite 189 Berkeley, CA 94704

AE911Truth.org

World Trade Center Building 7 fell symmetrically at free-fall acceleration into its own footprint at 5:20 PM on September 11, 2001.